From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis (marquis@nccn.net)
Date: Mon Jun 27 2005 - 22:28:57 BST
Part 3 of 3
A naive view of Eastern mysticism focuses on enlightenment, or the direct
experience, as the end-all be-all. Looked at in this way western
rationality is directly opposed and we have an Aristotelian either / or
split, with never the twain shall meet. Scott helped clarify this for me
when I first joined the group in my thread on Zen and rationality.
From other sources since then I've gathered that enlightenment is but a
foreshadow or preparatory step for holding both 'nothingness' and the world
of maya in one's mind simultaneously. This is obvious from hindsight, or we
would have a Descartes type paradox. The 'Sage', or wise person, an agent
who can do this, is a common goal in many traditions. If fact, I've come to
think of this as the defining attribute of a 'Wisdom Tradition'.
Another interesting side note is the various types of Yoga in the Hindu
Wisdom Tradition. One is Jnana Yoga, the way to God through knowledge.
This focuses on the aspect of the Cosmos as one. Another, Bhakti Yoga, the
way to God through love, depends on relationship as its central aspect, and
therefore duality. That both are held as legitimate paths in the same
tradition speaks to this idea of both the one and the many being both
correct / not correct in a both / and kind of way. I think Paul was
mentioning in a recent post about the founding sages of Vedanta having these
different perspectives as individuals, also within the same tradition
without contradiction.
To close a long post (maya calls, got to work ;)) I'll finish with the story
of an attempt of mine to understand a seeming paradox in Stoicism.
The Stoics were labeled 'dogmatists' for they held that certain knowledge
was possible. The Skeptics, OTOH, claimed that certain knowledge of
anything was impossible, even though both traditions claimed decent from the
Socratic tradition. From an SOM perspective the two seem irreconcilable.
However, the foundation for the Stoic claim rests on what they call the
'cognitive impression'. This is an 'impression' that registers with one
with such force as to be grasped as certain on its face (the famous metaphor
is a closed fist representing 'scientific' knowledge). Now, if we start
with input data from the 5 senses (the Stoics were empiricists in this
regard) how can one support such a claim? The Skeptics had a field day.
Mind, the claim was for certainty, not just a high probability or pragmatic
truth. The only way this could be feasible, as I see it, is to allow for
direct experience (the Stoics start with experience, not abstraction, as the
basis for reality).
So far so good. But, this impression is also supposed to be 'cognitive',
that is, certainty in the realm of articulate thought. We know that parsing
produces less than what is experienced, so how can certainty, even if
experienced, be transparent to the thinking parsing cognitive part of the
mind? Only if the Sophos, or Sage, can hold both the undifferentiated
experience of the one and the differentiated experience of the many together
at one time. Then the cognitive impression makes sense.
And, the Skeptics, if taken in moderation, were also right. To paraphrase
one of the alleged sources of Stoic metaphysics, Heraclitus, 'you can't step
in the same river twice'. So, it seems to me, that if w dig around enough
in Greek intellectual history we also can find a 'Wisdom Tradition' that
incorporates the paradox of the one and the many. That this time and place
may be the beginnings of the West's SOM stuckness is another story. At
least for me, its easier (relatively) to root around in ancient Greece
rather than India just because the former is the start of our intellectual
tradition and with the later there is more cultural differences to wade
through.
There are basically two ways to view the evolutionary process; bottom up
(materialism), or top down (starting with consciousness or some such). I
think the materialist perspective from within SOM is a dead end for the
explanations of how life arises and how consciousness arises is just as ugly
as it can get. This violates the elegance principle (do I here aesthetic)
of the scientific method every which way. Materialism from within a MOQ
framework shows more promise for inorganic comes first with subsequent
higher quality more complex static patterns following later. So the order
looks correct but the drive for higher quality still is unexplained. We are
left with what motivates DQ if we can even talk about such a thing. But
Pirsig insists on this drive for higher quality static patterns, this
evolution, and it seems to me to fit in with some old ideas concerning
teleology. At least to our purposeful human natures it seems this way!!
I don't know if 'intellect' or 'consciousness' is a good label for DQ's
drive, but it does seem to me things make more sense if we assume some
aspect of agency at work. Quality remains ineffable, however, and it may
just muddy the waters to attempt applying attributes to the Whole. Hard to
grasp. Personally, though, I like Scott's top down approach better.
Well, Allen, does overabundance suffice for being late?
Live well,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 27 2005 - 23:56:15 BST