From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Jan 11 2005 - 05:25:43 GMT
DMB,
> [Scott replied:]
> Are Plotinus, Shankara, and Merrell-Wolff also suffering from this
> blind spot?. They all tout the intellect. They do not treat intellect as
> something to be overcome, but as something to be purified and transformed.
>
> dmb says:
> The blindspot is in your view of Plotinus, not in Plotinus himself. As
I've
> tried to explain several times, the substance of his postion is not
> different from Pirsig's. As you may recall from THE ONE Plotinus says, "of
> this One no descripton nor scientific knowledge is possible." He also says
> the ONE "is inaudible, not to be understood through hearing, and if by and
> sense at all by vision alone. But if the eye that sees seeks to behold a
> form it will not descry even this." In his ancient way, he is saying just
> what Pirsig is saying, which is the idea that defines philosophical
> mysticsm; "the idea that truth is indefinable and can be
> apprehended only by non-rational means", as Pirsig puts it.
I completely agree that Plotinus considers the One to be completely
ineffable, without distinctions, and so on, and I agree that in this he and
Pirsig are the same. What I am pointing out is that, after this, Plotinus'
philosophy and Pirsig's are diametrically opposed, in their ways of
treating intellect. For Pirsig, intellect is just something human, another
level of SQ. For Plotinus, Intellect is the first emanation from the One,
and as such, divine. Pirsig says one must shut down the intellect to
experience pure DQ. Plotinus says one should purify one's intellect (he
recommends studying mathematics and dialectic -- see Tractate I.3.3) and
seek to rise to the Intelligible Realm. From there, since it is the first
emanation from the One, one is in contact with the One. Also, Plotinus says
that at that level (the Intellect, not the One), there is knowing without a
separation into knower and known. And, it is the Intellect which creates
all things, not the One, though the One is the ultimate source.
Merrell-Wolff says similar things, though he does not employ the
"emanation" vocabulary. He describes a level of Intellect in which there is
no separation between subject and object, what he calls Knowledge through
Identity. This is, again, not something that Pirsig can allow for. He just
separates SQ (which includes intellect) from DQ. And Merrell-Wolff also
recommends studying mathematics and philosophy as an aid to mystical
awakening. These are the two points of difference, then: first, that
Plotinus and Merrell-Wolff recognize a divine level of Intellect *as well
as* an ultimate level in which there are no distinctions, and second, that
intellect can be an aid to Awakening, not an obstacle.
And I just ran across this quote from Eckhart: "Intellect ['intelligere']
is higher than Being". Then there is the Gelukba sect of Tibetan Buddhism
(to which the Dalai Lama belongs), which also employs intellect in their
path. There is no room for any of this in Pirsig's philosophy of mysticism,
which makes it inadequate.
Therefore, you wasted most of a post to state quotes on a matter I wasn't
disputing, and ignored the points I am disputing. Did you not notice that I
said "Reality [with a capital-R] cannot be apprehended by reason"? If you
did, why do you think you were informing me of something by quoting FM-W
and Plotinus saying similar things?
On my use of the same word, but with capitalization and without, this is a
fairly common practice, one which Merrell-Wolff uses frequently, as do many
others (including Pirsig). It is to emphasize that the two uses are
different, but connected. For example, human intellect derives from divine
Intellect, and therefore shares some characteristics. So when Merrell-Wolff
refers to Thoughts that would take many lifetimes to put into human terms,
he is talking about Something, not ordinary human thoughts, but also not an
"undifferentiated continuum". I see no room in Pirsig's philosophy for what
Merrell-Wolff is referring to.
[DMB:]:
>And I have already mentioned the idea that static and
> dynamic are among the dualisms and divisions to be overcome. I've
mentioned
> it many times, in fact, and have quoted several mystics who say the same
> thing. Philosophy divides them because that's what philosophy does, it
> divides. But in Pirsig's case the division was selected for its ability to
> bring mysticism within a rational system. And within that system, it is
> asserted that reality is ultimately undivided and it is only the
philosophy
> that has divisions, not reality, which is One. In fact, Pirsig explains
this
> in the opening chapters of Lila as he leads up to the first division, the
> static/Dynamic split. So again, I think this is confusing at best and it
> could be less generously described as just plain wrong. That would be less
> generous, but it would still be accurate.
Yes, Pirsig does say near the beginning of Lila that he is just using the
static/Dynamic split to build a metaphysics, and that there is no real
division. I will get back to this in a moment. But when he says near the
end that the mystic's goal is to leave SQ behind to experience "pure DQ",
he has made the division real. Now, DQ is being treated as something
isolatable *by the mystic*. That is dualist.
Now I will no doubt once again confuse you by saying that Pirsig would be
better off by *not* treating the static/Dynamic split as just a
philosophical means. True, the particular words ('static' and 'dynamic')
are contingent, but to pretend that "in reality" there is no distinction at
all is absurd. Even if our terms 'positive and negative charge' or 'mating
rituals' belong just to our current understanding, if there are no
distinctions made at the inorganic and biological levels, there isn't
anything.
Hence I think that one should think in terms of opposites like dynamic and
static, or subject and object, as being really real (though contingent),
but one shouldn't divide reality into subjects and objects, or into the
dynamic and the static. They exist in contradictory identity, and by
existing in contradictory identity, create. I maintain (like Plotinus,
Merrell-Wolff, and Coleridge) that this kind of thinking is a skillful
means (as the Madhyamika say), and is not just something one does, like
getting drunk and picking up ladies in bars.
But, if this is just gibberish to you, then so be it.
- Scott
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 : Tue Jan 11 2005 - 05:29:20 GMT