mfer's
JONATHAN
> Life is better than death. One doesn't need a degree in ethics of
> philosophy to justify that. Life is its own justification. Life values itself.
MARK
> Although a religious perspective is not dominate here, I find that the close
> of the Bible brings life as the ultimate human reward. Revelation 21:3-4
<REB>
I heard a loud voice proclaiming from the throne: "Now God has his
dwelling with mankind! He will dwell among them and they shall be his
people, and God himself will be with them He will wipe every tear from
their eyes. There shall be an end to death, and to mourning and crying
and pain, for the old order has passed away!"
NISHANT
> however, from a buddhist perspective, which i think Pirsig favours, life "is an
> ocean of suffering". And the entire aim is to escape the cycle of life. This
> philosophy is in fact more than 300 years older that Christ.
> Whose truth is your truth?
HAMISH
> Please tell me if I got the wrong quote, because, needlessly messianical claims
> as to MoQ aside, to my mind this makes only a vaguely asymptotic amount of sense
> with respect to the discussion in hand! :-)
3WD
Asymptotic? Clearly as vague as Biblical references. Do the lines of
religion approaching the curve of reality ever meet it, even at
infinity? Or. Do evolving static patterns approaching dynamic quality
ever meet it, even at infinity? And if they do is this more moral? And
if they don't ?........Asymptotic.
Asymptotic aside, the introduction of religion vis a vis the discussion
at hand is not without merit. Understand that this is coming from
someone who's typical response to those who use Biblical quotes outside
the realm of religious discussion usually ranges from irreverence to
blasphemy.
Even if a lot of the discussion here sounds like rejoicing that yet
another " old order has passed away!" and part of that "old order" might
be one particular religion in lieu of another, or banishment of them
all, I just don't think this case can be made in behalf of the MoQ.
Rather I think just the opposite is the case. The MoQ provides a better
way to understand the role religion has and will continue to play, both
good and bad, in the evolution of mankind.
First, the MoQ, after centuries of retreat by religion from the forces
of science, says to science that religion is as real as atoms. And
further, religion is of a higher moral order, more evolved, more dynamic
than atoms and thus has greater freedom, rights, and responsibilities
than do atoms.
Second, though it is undeniable that the MoQ has roots in Eastern
religions in general, and Buddhism in particular, one must remember the
nature of Eastern religions is they are integral with Eastern
philosophy. In the end, assigning the MoQ as principally "Eastern" is
not quite right. I think that Pirsig would agree that the MoQ is based
in what Wilbur calls "Perennial Philosophy"
" The perennial philosophy is the world view that has been embraced by
the vast majority of the world's greatest spiritual teachers,
philosopher, thinkers, even scientists. It is call "perennial" or
"universal" because it shows up in virtually all cultures across the
globe and across all ages." [Wilbur-Grace and Grit 77-78]
"The perennial philosophy - the transcendental essence of the great
religions- has at its core the notion of ..."non duality," which means
that reality is neither one or many, neither permanent nor dynamic,
neither separate nor unified, neither pluralistic nor holistic. It is
entirely and radically above and prior to ANY form of conceptual
elaboration. It is strictly unqualifiable. If it is to be discussed at
all, then,.... it must involve paradoxical statements." [Wilber- Eye to
Eye 153-54]
Pirsig's often quoted, "Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest
mystic sense, a degenerate activity." affirms this paradoxical nature,
but like all thinkers, great and small, in the end the only choice is,
"Ahh, do it anyway..."
So "perennial philosophies" whether rooted in religion, philosophy, or
science all start with the claim that reality " is entirely and
radically above and prior to ANY form of conceptual elaboration"
[Dynamic Quality] and then immediately set about to split it into
"describable", "understandable" chunks [Static Quality, Subject and
Objects, etc]. Wilbur splits religion into two chunks called
"translation" and "transformation"
"I have tried to show that religion itself has always performed two very
important, but very different functions. One, it acts as a way of
creating meaning for the separate self: it offers myths and stories and
narratives and rituals and revivals, that taken together, help the
separate self make sense of, and endure the slings and arrows of
outrageous fortune." ........
"But two, religion, has also served -in a usually very, very small
minority- the function of radical transformation and liberation. This
function of religion does not fortify the separate self, but utterly
shatters - not consolation but devastation, no entrenchment but
emptiness, not complacency but explosion, not comfort but revolution -
in short, not a conventional bolstering of the consciousness but a
radical transmutation and transformation at the deepest seat of
consciousness itself" [Wilbur- One Taste- February 11]
The MoQ splits religion into Static Qualities, principally social but
some intellectual, patterns and Dynamic, mystic, Quality and the paradox begins:
"Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act
since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, [Static Quality] trying
to devour a higher mystic one. [Dynamic Quality]" Lila pg. 457
But IMHO the MoQ extends what could be construed as Wilbur's nominally
"religious" split of "translation" and "transformation" to the whole of
reality.
Is not the function of Static Quality that of "translation" - "that
offers myths and stories and narratives and rituals and revivals, that
taken together, help the separate self make sense of, and endure the
slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." or " the class of stable or
accepted values, patterns, laws, customs, and theories that societies
have formalized and that change little over time?"
Is not the function of Dynamic Quality that of "transformation" - "in
short, not a conventional bolstering of [reality] but a radical
transmutation and transformation at the deepest seat of [reality]
itself" or " those values which are outside of any society, that cannot
be contained by any system of precepts, but have to be continually
rediscovered as a culture evolves ?"
And now to the essence of the paradox and my answer to this month question.
Static Quality," the class of stable or accepted values, patterns" our
"translation" of reality CHANGES continuously over time. So static,
while stable, is dynamic. While Dynamic Quality, with the function " to
radically transmute and transform " reality, while above and beyond
concept or knowing, is eternal and unchanging. Static Quality is
dynamic- Dynamic Quality, is static or just IS. Thus, Dynamic Quality,
the power to "transform", is a higher moral order than Static Quality,
the power to "translate ", for without transforming, nothing moves,
nothing progresses, not even to entropy. So rather than "Life values
itself" or "Life is better than death," life values transformation,
transmutation, movement, progress, it seeks Dynamic Quality.
And this is Good.
3WD
PS: While this is probably so, it is only because I am still uncertain.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST