>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
Hello Glenn and Rick,
Rick I think I need you to explain some of your post. When you write things
like "I think this is the best evidence for the distinction between mere
extra light and Dharmakaya." I think that it is all mere light or it is all
dharmakay light it just the filters that distinguishing the two.. I can't tell
if I am clear at what you are saying here.
>RICK
> Dharmakaya is extra light let in by over dilated pupils, but all
>extra light let in by over dilated pupils isn't Dharmakaya. Remember, to
>Pirsig the D-light is the objective physical manifestation of a "dynamic
>intrusion upon a static situation (p 389)." Your experience with the eye
>drops had nothing to do with Dynamic Quality. It did make you see extra
>light, but by a different sort of cause. In other words, there are lots of
>ways to see the light, but it's only Dharmakaya if the way was Dynamic
>Quality.
ERIN: I think it is all dharmakaya light, the filters trick us into seeing a
difference.
PIRSIG: He thought it was probably the light the infants see when their world
is still fresh and whole before consciousness differentiates it into patterns;
a light into which everything fades at death.....The light would occur during
the breakup of the static patterns of the person's intellect as it returned
intot he pure Dynamic Quality which it had emerged in infancy.
RICK But if I read you correctly, you're suggesting that Pirsig thinks that
>much in the same way that there are some people who just run faster, some
>who just jump higher and some who can sing on key, there are also some who
>just happen to have pupils that tend to over dilate and let in extra light
>and that that light is Dharmakaya (is that about right?).
>
ERIN: I think that the individual difference is seeing the difference between
patterned and unpatterned reality and encountering unpatterned reality.
>RICK
> What's more is that Pirsig also says that most people dismiss the
>D-light as either 'some objective but irrelevant phenomenon' or 'some
>subjective and unreal phenomenon'. It's comments like these that had lead
>us all to the 'cognitive filtering' interpretation in the first place. And
>clearly this sort of 'filter' is explicitly referred to in the text.
ERIN: if somebody has the predisposition that patterned reality = objective
reality they are more likely going to dismiss unpatterned reality as
subjective (or filter it out)
RICK : The D-light appears when DQ intrudes on SQ. The potential for seeing
it
>requires a biological condition of the pupil which amounts to a 'physical
>predisposition' towards over dilation that only exists in a small percentage
>of the population. Those of us without this attribute only get dilation with
>changes in light. But those with it get all kinds of extra light, including
>Dharmakaya, when it occurs in their presence (when DQ intrudes on SQ).
ERIN: The more I think about this pupil dilation I don't think it is that
important, what is important is what causes the pupil dilation. Why I think
the difference is important is I don't think it is the dharmakaya light is
causing the pupil dilation it is the recognition of it.
RICK(note that by 'metaphysical predisposition' I am actually referring to the
>LACK of a general metaphysical predisposition to classify things as
>subjective or objective).
ERIN: I agree which is why I don't like distinguishing light and dharmakaya
light.
>RICK
> How about this... "When one who's pupils dilate more than normal lets go
>of his objectivity he can see the D-light when Dynamic Quality intrudes on
>static patterns in his presence." That is, to see the light one must have
>BOTH the right 'physical' and 'metaphysical' predispositions. Anyone who
>has the requisite dispositions can both SEE and RECOGNIZE the Dharmakaya
>light.
ERIN: very nice, I agree.
GLENN: (1) Even for people like Pirsig, who see the effect, the D.light is
>unpredictable. It comes and goes. Apparently his pupils don't always
>over-dilate.
>RICK---His pupils always over dilate but he doesn't always see D-light
>because DQ isn't always intruding on SQ. He always sees ordinary extra
>light, but not D-light.
ERIN: The environment is sufficiently filter enough that all the objects in
sight are patterned but occasionally one of those objects become or a new
object doesn't an particular pattern(or filters didn't work that time).
GLENN(2) Why do the pupils of a relatively small percentage of the Western
>population sometimes over-dilate?
>
RICK---It's not only that a relatively small percentage of the WESTERN
>population over dilates. It's that a relatively small percentage of the
>TOTAL population over dilates. The western population has the same small
>percentage of people with the 'physical predisposition' but far less with
>the 'metaphysical predisposition'.
>
ERIN: For example people who fit a "shaman" description are rare in any
culture that I have heard of-- but in one culture may be respected and in
another may be institutionalized. I have never heard of a culture with a
majority pop is shamans.
GLENN (4) Why do the pupils over-dilate when you take peyote or mescaline?
>
RICK ---This is the most interesting one. Psychedelic drugs physically cause
>pupils to over dilate (this is a well documented effect of drugs like Acid,
>mescaline, peyote, etc). That is, they induce the 'physical predisposition'
>and can allow those normally INCAPABLE of seeing the light the temporary
>POTENTIAL to do so.
> If you take LSD, you'll get all the extra light associated with a
>normally over dilated pupil, and if you happen to be in the presence of DQ
>intruding on SQ, you may see Dharmakaya if you're 'unobjective' enough.
>Moreover, it's often suggested that drugs breakdown the connection to
>culture and can induce this lack of objectivity. That is, they also may
>induce the 'metaphysical predisposition'.
> This double punch effect (over dilating the pupils and diminishing
>objectivity) is probably why so many people associate drugs with the mystic
>experience.
ERIN: I think this is an interesting but I think the drugs are altering the
filters and that causes the pupil dilation and everything will appear
unpatterned. It's close as we can get to understanding what it is like to
enter the world without filters.
>(6) Why does the effect come and go?
RICK ---The extra light effect is constant, but Dharmakaya comes and goes
>because DQ comes and goes.
ERIN; again i think dharmakaya light is always there but just filtered out.
>GLENN
>According to Pirsig, El Greco's paintings suggest that El Greco saw the
>light around the Christ child but not the prosecutor of the Spanish
>Inquisition.
>
>RICK
>Well... El Greco didn't see the actual historical event. He painted what he
>thought it may have looked like. I think Pirsig was suggesting that El Greco
>was someone who was able to see the D-light (physically capable and
>unobjective enough) and therefore painted it into his scene because he would
>have expected to see it had he been present at the actual event.
ERIN: It is interesting to look at the other El Greco painting described on
page 389 with the painting of Christ with no halo at all--the light is shifted
from to surrounding environment. I was wondering what you thought about why
El Greco did that. I think this is the painting that needs to be focused on.
>GLENN
>He saw the light on Lila twice and he thinks this means there is something
>Dynamic about her.
>RICK
>Or at least he thinks it means that there was something Dynamic about her at
>those times.
ERIN: He was trying to "classify" whether she had quality or not so perhaps
until he accomplished this task he had made she was still unpatterned.
>>GLENN
>When my pupils were dilated at the eye-doctor, everything in my visual field
>exhibited this fuzzy glow, from furniture to people. I can't think of any
>physical reason, if this is purely a feature of involuntary pupil dilation,
>why some objects would give off the light and others wouldn't.
>RICK
>I think this is the best evidence for the distinction between mere extra
>light and Dharmakaya.
ERIN: I think this is good evidence that it is not about light but about the
filters or categorization of the light. The objects were fuzzy but easily
categorized for you Glenn, nothing unpatterned.
>RICK
>I was only suggesting that it meant something closer to 'study' than to the
>notion that we're literally blind to the light. Right now, I think the best
>candidate would be 'recognize'... (reCOGnize)...this would fit with notion
>of
>the cognitive filtering element.
>
ERIN: I agree but i am having trouble figuring out why we need to have this
idea and a need distinguish dharmakaya light as a special light.
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 - 16:01:56 BST