Hey Erin,
> >PIRSIG
> >..he thought that the light was nothing more than involuntary widening of
> >the iris of the eyes of the observer that lets in extra light and makes
> >things look brighter, a kind of hallucinatory light produced by optic
> >stimulation, somewhat like the light that comes when one stares at
something
> >too long. Like eye blinks, it's assumed to be an an [sic] irrelevant
> >interruption of what one "really" sees, or it's assumed to be a
subjective
> >phenomenon, which is unreal...(p387-388).
>
> >RICK
> >This, I believe, is the real smoking gun. Clearly he feels that we all
SEE
> >the Dharmakaya light. He's suggesting that our culture explains away the
> >light as 'irrelevant' or 'unreal'.... not that we're blind to it.
>
>
> ERIN: You take peyote, stare at a light too long you hallucinate this
> dharmakaya light. Yes we all have the ability to hallucinate. One
culture
> says pay attention and the other culture says ignore. Social level
mediating
> the intellectual level. What so smokin' about this, what I am I still
missing
> here?
> Why is this such a smoking gun.
RICK
I'm not sure what's confusing you here.
The 'smoking gun' reference was just a reply to Glenn's assertion that
Pirsig's notion that some don't the D-light was a 'smoking gun' as evidence
that we're 'blind' to the light. I was simply saying that reading the
additional passage below, shows that Pirsig is not making an argument that
Social quality is a 'blinder' but rather a 'filter'. Do you disagree?
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:54 BST