Hey Erin and Glenn,
ERIN
> 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
The theory I'm currently road-testing with Glenn would say that the
light is an objective INORGANIC manifestation of DQ intruding on SQ. And
that there are, in fact, TWO filters...one biological and one sociological.
The BIOLOGICAL filter is involuntary (if you're born with it, you can't see
the light regardless of your metaphysical outlook). The SOCIOLOGICAL filter
is voluntary (to the extent that one can change their metaphysical
viewpoint), the less your inclination to divide up the world as subjective
and objective, the greater your chance of seeing the light. To see this
light, any given individual must be BOTH physically capable of seeing the
light and have a metaphysical viewpoint that can accommodate notions of
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 > into the pure Dynamic Quality which it had emerged in infancy.RICK The interpretation I'm using right now has no problems with this quote. Naturally, prior to conscious differentiation into patterns there wouldn't be a SOCIAL filter. My interpretation would further posit that while the eyes of the vast majority of infants eventually develop to dilate only in response to 'light to dark' changes (and thereby biologically 'shut' out the extra light), some infants' eyes just don't develop a quick biological 'shutter' (if you know what I'm saying). It's these few, with the 'slow shutters' that retain the BIOLOGICAL ABILITY to see Dharamakaya when it occurs in their presence.
------------------------------------------------------------ > RICK But if I read you [Glenn] 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 I actually like your interpretation. But I don't think it's Pirsig's. Your interpretation plays purely on the dichotomy of patterned (SQ) and unpatterned (DQ) reality. In your model, the filter is 'patterning' itself (SQ). In Pirsig's the filter is social patterns (but one kind of pattern).
> 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 Agreed. This is the 'social' filter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
RICK What is important is what the pupil dilation gives one the ability to witness.
ERIN 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 My interpretation would agree that D-light doesn't cause the pupil dilation. Rather, the pupil dilation allows the D-light in, allowing recognition of it (assuming a non-objective point of view). ----------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
RICK Same thing. I think El Greco would have expected to see the light around Christ and painted what he expected he would have seen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>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.
> 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 suggesting it was evident that the mere appearance of excess light in one's field of vision is not a sign of DQ intruding on SQ. --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >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.
RICK When you plug a bulb into a lamp and turn it on... is the light Dharmakaya?
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 - 16:01:56 BST