From: John Beasley (beasley@austarnet.com.au)
Date: Fri Oct 04 2002 - 08:01:57 BST
Hi Scott,
I tend to read what's in front of me at face value, hence my comments on
your recent post. Perhaps I could spend more time re-reading past posts to
refresh my memory of where each person is coming from, but frankly I already
begrudge the time I spend in reading or just scanning the multitude of posts
in just this forum, many of which seem pretty pointless to me. However I
apologise if I have misrepresented your position.
You say "The barrier to immediate experience is a SOM ego, not intellect."
Again, it all depends upon how you define intellect, and ego. I am not
convinced that the MOQ does anything to remove ego, and in fact I see this
as a glorious 'red-herring' in this forum. The MOQ is a metaphysics that
happens to talk about such things as undefinable quality, as metaphysics
tend to do, but that does not make it a path to a mystic experience of such
quality. Understanding the term dynamic quality is no substitute for a
mystic praxis, should one exist. I have not yet met a MOQ convert without
clear indications of an ego, and will be suitably surprised when I do.
I don't want to deny that "mystical experience has noetic content", though I
suggest you wade through my long post to Sam if you are interested in my
understanding of what that means. Saying "intellect *becomes* immediate
experience" though is just too confusing in my view. Let's stay within the
general bounds of convention when redefining words, or at least make clear
what your meaning is when using them in such idiosyncratic ways.
SCOTT: "Again, haven't I said a thousand times that intellect without
transcendence gives no ultimate answers? (And transcendence allows no
ultimate description.) Why else did I emphasize that dogma must be
inexplicable? Otherwise one might believe that it contains answers."
Well, no, not a thousand times, I fear. But yes, I do hear that you are
annoyed that I hadn't remembered that this is your position. I fail to
understand what use a dogma might be that contains no answers. I sort of
thought that was the whole point of dogma. However I do take your point that
dogma can be constructed so as to incorporate paradox. I just wonder if it
really achieves anything. It seems sort of sad and futile to me.
SCOTT: "immediate experience is hearing (insert your favorite word here:
Absolute, Quality, etc.) speak."
I think we agree here. I like the formula "attending to what is".
But to put bickering behind us, if possible, I was very impressed by your
post to Platt in which you said "how does a belief in Quality as an absolute
ward off torture? Quality is undefinable. It is does not come with a sticker
on it saying "Thou shalt not torture". That sticker is a fairly recent
pattern of sq. Now I happen to have faith that there *is* something beyond
little ol' egoistical me that *does" say that torture is always wrong, but I
sure as hell don't know how to demonstrate it, even if I presuppose that
Quality is an absolute" Good point.
I've also added Magliola to my extensive 'must read' list, on your
recommendation. I too have been dipping into Cupitt, though I find him less
impressive than I had hoped. He can be scintillating, and his critique of
the traditional church is spot on, but he sort of surfs over what I take to
be the more interesting aspects of mysticism.
Must go,
Regards,
John B
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:52 GMT