John and squad
John wrote:
>I am intrigued by the many references in Lila Squad that suggest a 'pursuit' of dynamic
>quality. In my mind this is due to a fundamental confusion, for which I blame Pirsig, that
>quality is the same as value, or more incorrectly, that quality equals good. Of course even
>Pirsig's own examples do not bear this out. To sit on a hot stove is not good, but it's a highly
>dynamic experience. Value technically can be positive or negative, while good is superficially
>only the positive side of this polarity. I see much confusion due to conflation of Dynamic
>Quality with some sort of ideal, or goal. To me the encounter with dynamic quality in here
>and now experience is the most basic 'information' we have, and the processing of this
>through memory and intellect provides us with static values that can guide our future choices
>with some limited validity, always subject to the proviso that any new encounter with the
>dynamic can over rule the static guidelines from the past. But I have no sense of dynamic
>heaven, towards which we are making our way.
In the hot stove example, the point is that you instantly jump off the stove. Obviously not
being on a hot stove is a position of betterness compared with sitting on a hot stove. However
I don't see any dynamic heaven discussed in Pirsig's work, there's no end of the road, dynamic
keeps on shifting - as soon as you've grasped it it's gone.
>At the level of the organism, evolutionary processes have produced largely automatic
>responses to dynamic elements of our encounter with the environment. Threats and rewards
>are both noticed and acted upon within milliseconds, with amazing accuracy. If several
>threats occur together, we automatically grade them and react to the most pressing without
>requiring conscious thought. We are programmed, if you like, to handle the dynamic quality
>as it emerges. We do not need to 'choose' consciously - the 'wisdom of the organism' is
>enough.
Right biologically it's easier to respond to dynamic because the intellectual patterns don't get in
the way and confuse you.
>Here the mystic has a different solution. Quoting Aubrey Menen, in 'The New Mystics', "the
>honest sort of Indian mystic has something very simple to say. He knows a way of putting our
>minds to rest without resorting to drink, or drugs, or a crack over the head with a hammer. It
>is a way of stopping you thinking. It has no appeal to people whose worry is that they never
>seem to have started: but more intelligent people do often feel that they need a holiday from
>their own minds, while leaving them intact to come home to when the holiday is over. That is
>all Indian mysticism is about, but as I shall show ... it is quite enough. In fact, it is one of the
>most revolutionary ideas in the history of civilization."
That's pretty much the same as Pirsig's theory. Remember in Lila the only moral thing he does
in the book is when he doesn't think and automatically answers yes to Rigel's question.
>Now I do not agree that a baseball bat is the most effective tool for teaching meditation. I do
>not have much respect for Zen methods at all, because I think Zen heads in the right
>direction and then sells its practitioners short. Zen arose in a highly militaristic society and
>shares many of its vices.
>From my own observations the Buddhist religion is as stale and corrupt as the Christian.
However that's not to say that there wasn't a time when Zen was taken seriously or that
there aren't people within the practice who are sincere. We shouldn't decide the practice is
wrong just because some people abuse it.
>Diana suggests we strip away 'self', 'substance', 'causation' and so on. Good so far as it
>goes. Let's get to the root. Strip away ideation and intellect, not with a baseball bat, or zazen,
>or drugs, but by attending to our ongoing experience. We don't have to spend years firing
>arrows, or sitting in discomfort or agony, or running up mountains, to do this. Everyday
>routine is just fine.
I think that's basically what Pirsig says. The important part about practising Zen's repetitive
practices is getting them perfect. So, it doesn't matter what endeavors you take up, as long as
you absorb yourself in them, or attend to them, as you put it, then you are practising Zen.
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:43 GMT