David, Mary, and squad.
Mary, I sent my note to David via his personal E-mail I will include it
here so that you can join the discussio
David Says: To Mary:
"But what i really want to address was the disagreement itself. You
object especially to a quote from the "Guidebook to ZMM" (P.26) where
Dr. DiSanto says "What is considered ultimate reality may be variously
named in different mystical traditions. It may be called Brahman or Tao
or Buddha or Quality". Here, obviously, Disanto is saying that Pirsig's
Quality is one of many kinds of mysticism."
Clark Says:
My disagreement with you is not with your conclusions but with your
interpretation of mysticism and Quality. My understanding of Quality is
that it began with the Big Bang. With the energetics established at that
time and the 75-25 Hydrogen/helium split in the beginning, the history of
the uiniverse was determined. Quality (the force for greater information
content) was very limited in the beginning. As the universe developed and
became more complex Quality had an increasingly broader scope in which to
operate. This increasingly broader scope resulted in the universe as we
understand it today. Eventually the force of Quality produced life and Us.
What I understand as mysticism today is a result of the continual
expansion of a priori information that has built up and which humanity now
has available for which we have no explanation. I agree that telling the
difference between this body of a priori subliminal knowledge and mysticism
would be difficult to sort out. My preference for the a priori explanation
concerns the fact that we can look back on a logical build up of complexity
and see how we have arrived at the state of confusion we are in today even
though we cannot piece it together from the beginning. The proliferation of
the many strains of mysticism that we observe today is the result of
Pirsig's "Many Truths" idea in which each individual selects from his/her
sea of awareness those aspects toward which his entire history including
his immediate environment inclines him/her. It would even resolve the
differences between Logical Positivism and Romanticism.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could agree on a definition of mysticism?I
think that if this view of mysticism were adopted it would solve a lot of
arguments. With one fell swoop we could unify all of the different
religious conflicts but could we stand the peace? I wouldn't even have to
break my head on Buddha and Zen any more.
Sorry for butting into your thread but you clarified an argument for me
which I have been trying to get across without success. Ken
KEN: I liked your explaination for the "big bang" in terms of the
> evolution of Quality. But I think that undefinable Quality doesn't
> itself evolve so much as cause evolution. You totally forgot to mention
> static quality. Quality is behind it all, but what we see in the
> universe are the static patterns of value. Even the early hot gases are
> static enough to have fomed into atoms. Even the subatomic constituents
> have enough "form" to be considered static patterns.
>
> KEN asked, "wouldn't it be nice if we could agree on a definition of
> mysticism?
>
> I don't know how to respond to Ken's definition of mysticism cause i
> didn't understand it. I say we gotta go with Pirsig's definition of
> mysticism. I've taken Mary's advice and dusted off my copy of Lila. Its
> filled with mysticism. Pirsig uses the concept frequently and goes along
> way toward explaining it's relevance to the MOQ. Please let my response
> to MARY serve as an example of what I mean.
>
Clark writes:
David,
I keep forgetting that people read what I write rather than what I mean.
I completely agree that Quality (what I prefer to think of as "The Force
for Greater Information Content") is responsible for the evolution of the
universe. You will notice that I only referred to Quality by which I meant
to include both Dynamic Quality and Static Quality. In my mind they are
both cut from the same cloth with DQ being precognitive and Static Quality
being postcognitive. Where Quality came from in the first place is beyond
my comprehension. I prefer to think that the relationship of the initial
physical parameters dictated the succeeding interaction that eventually
resulted in all else. The complexity that followed resulted from the
possibilities presented by the initial organization of the energetics of
the universe. I think you can see that the action of time and gravity and
space expanded the possibilities available to the force of Quality. This
eventually resulted in the development of the complexity that has brought
us to the position we now occupy. Notice that I contend that the history of
the universe has a physical explanation even though we cannot piece
together the whole story. All of the workings of the universe, from the
development of the 92 original elements to the structure of the universe
that we observe today is explainable in believeable terms physically. So
far I think that we have not much disagreement.
Here is where we will probably digress.
I CONTEND THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MYSTICISM. I contend that what we
now consider mysticism is a result of the complexity of the universe that
resulted from the action of Dynamic Quality and Static Quality. By the time
that humanity (consciousness) came along the universe was so complex that
it appeared magical to us since we had no hope of mentally following the
progression of the buildup of information. Mysticism is an artifact of
complexity.
If you think about it a minute you will see that this changes nothing in
the arguments presented in ZMM and Lila. All of Pirsig"s conclusions still
apply. The only difference is that instead of appealing to mysticism and
the presence of non-physical forces (Gods) in the universe we can now
appeal to complexity. If we relieve the MIND of magical forces then we can
dispense with all of the mystical religions in the world and alleviate most
of the differences of opinion within humanity. We will have to find
something else to fight about.
Notice, too, that humanity is just a stage in the life of the universe.
Our human ignorance (so far at least) can only affect our particular
planet.
I am now reading a book by John Gribben entitled "In The Beginning" 'the
birth of the living universe', in which he contends that the universe
exhibits all of the characteristics of a living organism. He proposes that
the prebiotic molecules formed in the atmospheres of stars and thus is
seeded throughout the universe. Wouldn't it be a blast if the universe were
populated with little clusters of humanity throughout.
I have now rattled along so long that I can't remember what I have said
previously.
KEEP IN MIND THAT IN ORDER TO REACH ANY SORT OF AGREEMENT YOU WILL HAVE TO
TURN LOOSE OF THE IDEA OF MYSTICISM AND SUBSTITUTE COMPLEXITY IN ITS PLACE.
Ken.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:46 BST