"I don't think its going to work out with my new girlfriend. I like to
eat red meat, but she's a Buddhist and she really isn't into....being
alive." Steven Wright
John, Kevin and Diana are the authors I'm thinking about as this
compostion begins. At the risk of boring the rest of you, I have to
thank Diana for the last few posts. I can't even say why they were good.
Reading them was mostly an aesthetic experience. I believe that was the
intention; a kind of prose poem.
Both Kevin and Diana have posted a response to John. I don't want to
make it seem all complicated and confusing, so there will be no
elaborate, point by point philosophizin' here. But I do want to pick up
several threads from lots of posts, so I'll just go ahead a presume
everyone has been reading all their Lila mail.
More specifically, I hope to expand upon John's idea that attending to
the moment is the key to DQ and Kevins idea that unification with DQ is
THE goal.
Hopefully, there is a way to synthesize their apparently differing
views. And most importantly, I hope to do it in a way that angers and
infuriates both of them. Just kidding.
I have a lot of sympathy with Kevin's emphasis on Mysticism, but I think
he goes too far. He says reality is undivided DQ, but I think it is
pretty clear that Pirsig says reality is 100% Quality. The
static/Dynamic split only comes after the first metaphysical slice.
Pirsig divides reality along the lines of what is knowable and definable
(SQ) and that which it beyond definitions (DQ). As I understand it,
this means that every imaginable thing in the universe is made of static
quality, even the concepts about those things are composed of static
quality. I don't think there is such a thing as a Dynamic thought. DQ is
pre-intellectual reality. The difference between static and dynamic is
not the same as the difference between liberal and orthodox. Its not a
matter of the differences between open-mindedness and dogmatism. All
ideas are static intellectual patterns. How rigidly or closely they are
held by individuals is just a matter of style and personality. Dynamic
Quality is to be equated with the mystical reality, and it is the source
of all inspiration and genius, but once the idea has been born and
thought it becomes a static reality.
And I think Kevin goes too far in saying SQ is an illusion. I think it
is more correct to say SQ is illusory. It is real, but it tends to
mislead. On the face of things, phenomenal reality certainly SEEMS to be
filled with a variety of divisions, conflicts, opposites and everything
but unity. Cat and mouse are One? Day and night are One? Man and woman
are One? Ordinary conciousness makes distinctions that work, even if
those distinctions don't reflect the true nature of reality. But
ordinary consciousness wasn't built for metaphysics, it was built of and
for static patterns of Quality. We were built to think. We have big
brains instead of sharp fangs and brute strength. We didn't adapt to our
enviroment so much as learn to change the enviroment. We dont grow our
own fur, but we learned to take the coats from other beasts. Our minds
dealt with very little other than survival until just a few thousand
years ago. Our consciousness is an ancient machine that has only
recently been assigned a whole new set of tasks. We ask it to do a job
it wasn't trained for. We ask it to see the unity behind the world of
the ten thousand things. Our perceptions are limited for other reasons
too. But those are issues of epistemology and ought not be construed in
way that denies the reality of static Quality altogether.
After all, why would Pirsig spend so much time explaining how to judge
the morality and/or degeneracy of an illusion? And how does an ordinary
mind find the unity of DQ? ....
John is a doctor of the mind? A psychotherpist? Psychoanalyst?
Psychiatrist?Zen Master? Guru? I think they are more similar than John
would like to imagine. I'll defer to your professional expertise, but it
seems "attending" is a very, very Zen like thing to do. And your
emphasis on the ordinary and everyday realities is also very Zen.
Further, most of the spiritual leaders we know are hucksters and con
men, but the genuine traditions are very much like a relationship
between a psychoanalyst and his or her patient. Both ask the "student"
to examine their own thoughts and feelings in a deeper way. Both monitor
and encourage an internal growth in the "patient". I don't point this
out for any reason other than to confirm the validity of both approches.
Alan Watts wrote a book titled "Psychotherapy; East and West". I'm sure
you know plenty of others who have covered the same ground. I liked
"Open Secrets" too. I forget who wrote that one. Both books reveal the
striking similarities between our modern psychological understand and
the Eastern mystical religions.
Perhaps you read the post about the brain's structure reflecting our
evolutionary progression? The main point was that the structure also
reflects Pirsig's levels. The reptilian brain is at the biological
level. The middle brain is at the social level of awareness and the
neocortex is the structure that works at the intellectual level. This is
a vast over-simplification. There are many layers in the psyche, I'm
sure. But for the sake of arguement...
Lets say that an individual can to learn to "attend" to all their
thought processes, which is certainly an ordinary, everyday,
right-in-front-of-you sort of thing. Thinking about thinking may be a
little unusual in the West, but its not magic or sorcery. Its in the
moment if you're doing it right. Lets say that were dealing with
relatively healthy minds. (Who among us isn't a little neurotic? I'm the
Noah's arc of neurosis, two of each kind.) Lets say they ought to attend
to their thoughts and feelings in such a way that they can discern
between reptilian urges and limbic centered emotions. Say such a person
learns to "see" the origins of every fleeting thought and feeling. Such
a person could then discipline the mind to properly weigh and balance
all the competeing "voices" within them into a unified whole. Such a
person would have integrated the three levels into a harmonious chorus
and become a whole self. I believe this is the true meaning of the word
"integrity". Such a person would be very likely to recieve the
inspirational gifts of DQ because there is no static interference. I
think a totally integrated personality is going to be naturally
creative, spontaneous and full of love and joy, all the things we
imagine DQ can bestow.
This is how Kevin's and John's can actually fit together. If we are each
a microcosm and we attend to all the static levels within us, we are
also attending to the cosmos as a whole. Through this kind of expansion
of consciousness, an individual can realize the unity beyond our
perceptions. The unity of reality becomes apparent to the unified mind.
If you want to paint a perfect picture, then just be perfect and paint
naturally.
David B.
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:43 GMT