From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 17 2004 - 19:58:50 GMT
Hi Paul
Good stuff again, I agree that you have pushed Bo's
ideas into the areas where they fail to work i.e. non-western thought. I
also
agree that certain aspects can be salvaged by not exaggerating
the extent of its application. The heart of what Bo is saying
is that a certain story about western thought begins in Greece.
This is the story of SOM as Pirsig tells it. It culminates in the
power of modern science to understand static patterns at the
inorganic and organic levels. It breaks down at the lowest
level of inorganic patterns (quantum patterns) and when science
tries to deal with less static living, social and thinking levels.
Whilst SOM has dominated western thinking Pirsig was able to
find other sorts of thinking at the start of the western tradition
and in the eastern tradition. There has also been some non
SOM thinking within the western tradition (somewhat glossed
over by Pirsig e.g. Schelling, Bergson, Heidegger but he covers Peirce &
Whitehead
I think). So to conclude there is clearly plenty of scope for non-SOM
intellect and
thinking and I think only Bo thinks otherwise. Bo, I suggest you limit your
idea to
its proper extent, i.e. the non-complete dominance (yet still dominant let
us not
forget at this enlightened site) of SOM in western thought.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 5:08 PM
Subject: RE: MD The Dynamic/Static resolution.
> Bo
>
> Bo said:
> I tried to find out a little about the so-called Upanishadic period, but
> it was very difficult, my Philosophy book seemed to say that Indian
> culture went on to the Yoga branch of philosophy after the said Brahman
> era, and then that the later more prominent philosophers (for instance
> one Shankara around 800 AD) were to be compared to the Middle Age
> religious philosophers ...for instance Johannes Eckhard.
>
> Paul:
> As I understand it, the Upanishads are a set of "scriptures" written in
> Sanskrit that form a major part of the Vedantic philosophy and are
> derived from the contemplation of the ancient Vedas. From what I have
> read of them (translations are freely available on the web), they
> exhibit a conscious effort, depicted in conversation, to understand
> fundamental relationships between self, world and nothingness. They make
> use of logic and analysis and as such the MOQ identifies them as
> intellectual patterns, as per Pirsig's letter. By contrast, the Vedas
> are what the MOQ would identify as social patterns - ancient hymns and
> rites passed on through the ages by repetition and devotion - that
> supposedly stretch back to the Aryan people.
>
> I am open to correction here, but Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva seem to
> be the three most influential Vedantic philosophers, each forwarding a
> different understanding of the nature of reality. Broadly speaking,
> Shankara emphasised oneness and the identity between self and world
> (Dynamic Quality). Ramanuja accepted this ultimate identity but
> recognised the reality of "conditioned" difference (static quality).
> Madhva emphasised ultimate difference between self, nothingness, and the
> world. From what I have read, all three systems strike me as being as
> equally intellectual as a lot of western philosophy.
>
> Bo said:
> So here is an important point that must be observed. Religious thinking
> is an immense field - God knows - but this is Social patterned thinking
> (Dynamic re. religious mysticism) according to the MOQ, not
> Intellectual.
>
> Paul:
> Well, this is obviously what is required for your theory, but according
> to Pirsig, it is not so. He clearly states in his letter to me that he
> considers the Upanishads to be part of the intellectual level which is
> consistent with the line in Lila, "Following the period of the Brahmanas
> came the Upanishadic period and the flowering of Indian philosophy.
> Dynamic Quality reemerged within the static patterns of Indian thought."
> [Lila p.438]
>
> So, to be clear on this, are you disagreeing and saying that the
> Upanishads do not signal the emergence of an Oriental intellectual
> level?
>
> Bo said:
> We will muddle the MOQ thoroughly if we regard "philosophy" or
> "thinking" as Q-INTELLECTUAL activity in themselves.
>
> Paul:
> You're starting to fudge your theory in the face of contrary evidence.
> You now have to qualify your previously held view, "philosophy is
> intellectual," with, "western philosophy is intellectual." This was
> precisely the narrow definition of intellect that I questioned in my
> letter to Pirsig which led him to answer, "The argument that Oriental
> cultures would not be classified as intellectual is avoided by pointing
> out that the Oriental cultures developed an intellectual level
> independently of the Greeks during the Upanishadic period of India at
> about 1000 to 600 B.C." Your SOLAQI interpretation is taking you further
> and further away from Pirsig's statements about the levels.
>
> Bo said:
> If there was a budding intellectual level it petered out and ended in
> religious mysticism. Its dynamism was the very obstacle to a static
> establishment. Consequently, there as no SOM from where the MOQ could
> emerge.
>
> Paul:
> And now you are moving from flawed premises through to flawed
> conclusion. Oriental culture has now been restricted to prehistoric
> social patterns.
>
> Paul previously said:
> > "Rta" became "dharma," a term central to Indian philosophy that
> > "includes both static and Dynamic Quality without contradiction."
> > [Lila p.440] The Sophists seem to have been doing the same thing with
> > aretê and rhetoric until Plato and co. usurped it with dialectic.
>
> Bo said:
> Yes, but still Social Dharma, the Oriental culture didn't allow it to
> "degrade" into static intellectual Dharma ...at least this is the way it
> looks from the MOQ. The fact that the Orientals paid so much attention
> to the dynamic aspect of existence explains the lack of any further
> STATIC development.
>
> Paul:
> I think you've argued your way into a corner. The way I see it, the
> "profound achievement" of Vedantic and Buddhist philosophy that Pirsig
> talks about in Lila was precisely to resolve the Dynamic-static
> relationship within its static intellectual patterns. Regarding dharma
> being social, you are correct in that dharma was taken from the social
> patterns of Vedic "rta," but it doesn't end there. Pirsig has this to
> say in Lila, "Within the Hindu tradition dharma is relative and
> dependent on the conditions of society. It always has a social
> implication. It is the bond which holds society together. This is
> fitting to the ancient origins of the term. But within modern Buddhist
> thought dharma becomes the phenomenal world-the object of perception,
> thought or understanding." [Lila p.439]
>
> Bo said:
> As said, a religious "philosopher" is no Q-intellect representative.
>
> Paul:
> You now define intellect as "western, non-religious philosophy," which
> rules out much of idealism and medieval philosophy, including
> neo-platonism, as well as people like Barfield, Coleridge and countless
> others.
>
> Furthermore, in eastern culture, I believe one cannot draw such a sharp
> line between philosophy and theology. However, this does not prevent
> their systems from being rigorously logical and empirical - indeed some
> would argue that they are more logical and empirical than much of
> western philosophy. When your religion simply points to immediately
> apprehended aesthetic experience as the presence of the divine and your
> metaphysics points to immediately apprehended aesthetic experience as
> the source of phenomena which we study then the two are not in
> opposition.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think you have reached the end of a road here Bo. I think it has been
> shown that your SOLAQI, in its current form, causes more problems than
> it was intended to solve, and I do believe SOLAQI was invented to solve
> problems. I also feel that *both* of our positions have become the
> victim of ad hoc modification and it would probably be a good idea to
> back up a little. Finally, I think there are three or four aspects of
> SOLAQI that can be "salvaged":
>
> 1. Static intellectual quality, broadly speaking, is measured by truth.
> 2. The intellectual level began at around the time of the ancient Greeks
> in the west (and the Upanishadic period in the east).
> 3. "Thinking" is an inadequate definition of the intellectual level.
>
> and something you have alluded to
>
> 4. Language is a link or perhaps the link between the social and
> intellectual levels.
>
> I think each aspect needs its own clarification if we are going to move
> past this point in our discussion. Of course, you may think SOLAQI does
> not require "salvaging" in which case I'm afraid I'm running out of
> energy.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Tue Feb 17 2004 - 20:13:44 GMT