From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Dec 28 2003 - 18:38:12 GMT
Khoo Hock Aun:
However, my point of view is not that of "linear" time. There is only
reality which is the eternal now, (or present) on one side of the fault
line; this represents unpatterned Dyanmic Quality and on the other side,
there are patterns of the past and future both conceived as concepts in the
mind. We continually update or change our past patterns by our present
actions as quickly as the future patterns are conceived and acted upon.
Patterns therefore arise and dissolve all the time in the eternal now;
giving rise to the concept that there is "linear" time. There is no past and
future in reality, only patterns of the past and future - but everything
happens to everything else all at once in the eternal now.
David M: For me I am happy to say DQ is eternal (which is a nothing kind of
statement) but otherwise eternal sounds too Platonic for my liking. I am
happy
to embrace the non-concept of Nothing, but I think this is important because
of the perspective on the hear and now that it gives. I am therefore
interested in
the return to the finite world where clouds and mountains become clouds and
mountains
again. The magnificence of the Nothing is also reflected in the shock that
there
is Being, something rather than only Nothing. The root and source is
Nothing, yet there
is also something. There are patterns, things repeat, it seem worthwhile to
go around
the circle another time. There are also Pirsig's levels and some sort of
journey occuring.
As Schelling says: in man nature opens her eyes and becomes aware of
herself.
So perhaps we should give thanks. Yet there is much that is horrific.
The journey is proving very difficult. My personal god is less an all
knowing creator
than a project that needs all the help it can get. To be challenging perhaps
I would
ask if Buddhism tries to get out of what looks like a pretty rough ride (I
am sure this is unfair
but I look forward to your answer)?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "khoo hock aun" <hockaun@pc.jaring.my>
To: "Moq_Discuss@Moq.Org" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: MD The Metaphysical Fault Line (Was Sit on my faith)
> Dear David and All,
>
> David :
> > Interesting to refer to the self as 'it' Seems to me that subject-object
> split says 'it' to objects.
> > To say 'it' to the self is to draw the line elsewhere. This would be the
> same place as for DQ/SQ I would suggest.
> > To me everything that is past is unchangeable/static and is therefore
> 'it'. The future for consciousness is always open/DQ.
> > When consciousness turns its attention to the past this is also open,
> because the past is always open to interpretation (as
> > Sartre says). Would this relate to why you would say 'it' to the self?
The
> 'self' seems to imply identity. But identity is a
> > flawed concept. It can apply only to that which is static, and
therefore,
> I would say, past. The importance of time is why I
> > think Heidegger has more to say about. how DQ/SQ relate tha Pirsig. But
I
> continue to champion Pirsig for his
> > more comprehenisble analysis. Heidegger has proved very popular in China
> and Japan apparently.
>
> Khoo:
> Thank you for your comments. My repeated reference to the "self" in
> inverted commas seems to present the subject as an "object" with yet
another
> subject observing the "self" at another level, doesn't it ? And what about
> this new subject, itself a new "self" being observed by yet another
subject
> at another level. we could go on in infinite regression - and the
> metaphysical fault line is pushed further back and back, but it is always
> there, as long as the worldview is that of the subject-object divide.
>
> The buddhist point of view of the "self" is that it is a transcient
pattern;
> a flow of mental processes, casually conditioned, and the 'character' is
> nothing more than a particular set of tendencies, which give it direction.
> At any given moment the "self" is continually manifesting, constantly
> arising from the universe. Intellectually, the mind conceptualies a "self"
> and thinks there is a subject-object divide. From the buddhist
perspective,
> there is no such divide: there is only the illusion of one.
>
> Would the DQ/SQ differentiation be the basis of a new metaphysial fault
line
> ? From my point of view, the DQ/SQ divide is an unpatterned/patterned
> dichotomy. Pirsig's description of Static Quality as pattens of value
which
> we see in the various levels serves as a useful metaphor for how people in
> general and individuals in particular habitually latch on to these
patterns.
> Tensions occur when new patterns evolve from unpatterned reality (DQ) to
> challenge the rigidity of established patterns (SQ). This differentiation
> serves as an excellent metaphor to describe the present conflicts between
> individual and society and point the way for the individual to draw
> inspiration and creativity from unpatterned Dynamic Quality.
>
> Is time taken linearly the metaphysical fault line ? You suggest this as
the
> past/unchangeable as Static and the future/open as Dynamic Quality with us
> as "selves" positioned in between. Interestingly, in karmic terms, your
> past actions have made you what you are today and determined the
> circumstances you will find yourself in. The "self" is only the
end-product
> of prior casual relations extending back into the infinite past. Each
"self"
> is open to the potential the future offers and each action taken now
> determines the future "self". This is certainly one way of putting it.
>
> However, my point of view is not that of "linear" time. There is only
> reality which is the eternal now, (or present) on one side of the fault
> line; this represents unpatterned Dyanmic Quality and on the other side,
> there are patterns of the past and future both conceived as concepts in
the
> mind. We continually update or change our past patterns by our present
> actions as quickly as the future patterns are conceived and acted upon.
> Patterns therefore arise and dissolve all the time in the eternal now;
> giving rise to the concept that there is "linear" time. There is no past
and
> future in reality, only patterns of the past and future - but everything
> happens to everything else all at once in the eternal now.
>
> Its a breath-taking view. When one meditates and arrests the
> pattern-building activities of the mind, the arbitary concepts of self,
past
> time and future time disappear - only to reveal the eternal now bathed in
> Dharmakaya Light. That's another tale.
>
> Then there is Synchronicity - as described by David Peat in his book
> Synchronicity : The Bridge Between Matter and Mind:
> "Synchronicities take the form of patterns that emerge by chance out of a
> general background of chance and contingency and hold a deep meaning for
the
> person who experiences them.... Synchronicities represent a bridge between
> matter and mind and the concept of causality is clearly not appropriate to
> the world of mental events. By probing causality to its limit, it has been
> discovered that "everything causes everything else" and that each event
> emerges out of an infinite web or network of causal relationships....
>
> "Synchronicity has gradually been enfolded into an entirely new dimension;
> in place of a causal deterministic world, in which mind and matter are two
> separate substances, appears a universe of infinite subtlety that is much
> closer to a creative living organism than to a machine. Reality, in this
> way, is pictured as a limitless series of levels which extend to deeper
and
> deeper subtleties and out of which the particular, explicate order of
nature
> and the order of consciousness and life emerge. Synchronicities can
> therefore be thought of as an expression of this underlying movement, for
> they unfold as patterns of thoughts and arrangements of material processes
> which have a meaningful conjunction when taken together" .
>
> My only reference to Heidegger is a paper by Qingjie (James) Wang, Chinese
> University of Hong Kong entitled Heng and the Temporality of Dao: Laozi
and
> Heidegger where he observes first, that both Laozi and Heidegger refused
to
> give priority to the traditional "objective" and "linear" concept of time.
> Second, both saw that primordial temporality must present itself through
the
> ecstatically finite-ness (Endlichkeit) (Heidegger) or the "gushing
> (heng-ing)" (Laozi) of concrete existing things in the world. That is to
> say, things always temporalize (zeitigen) themselves or get temporalized
in
> between their "beginnings" and "ends." Third, both of them took, or are
> inclined to take, the original form of temporalization of being or dao as
> cyclical rather than chronological.
>
> At the end of his paper though, he mentions that if we knew the historical
> facts that Heidegger was attracted by "the origin of eastern thoughts,"
> especially by the thoughts of Laozi and Zhuangzi, which were his favorites
> from the middle of the 1920s, we may not be surprised to hear some
scholars
> talking about the "hidden sources of Heidegger" today.
>
>
> Best Regards
> Khoo Hock Aun
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Sun Dec 28 2003 - 19:48:15 GMT