From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 21:24:39 BST
John,
You refer to "that aspect of the person which gives continuity". In my
view that is (in MOQ terms) DQ. I wrote a post a while back, I think to
Wim, explaining this, in which I argued to deal with this (but not to
understand it) one needs the logic of contradictory identity. But that's
a whole 'nother ball of wax.
On intellect, I might be clearer by emphasizing what I see as its
virtue, namely, its use as the tool for detachment. This is why I am in
substantial agreement with Bo's SOLAQI, that, while the intellectual
level is largely responsible for making us "alone in the universe", by
creating a subject over against an objective world, one must not forget
that before the rise of the intellectual level, there was plenty of
bloodshed and war and so on as well (and infants are the most selfish
folks around). What the intellectual level does is
allow us to a) become conscious of ourselves, and b) become detached
from the biological and social attachments that bedevil us.
That's why I said that wordless concentration is a training of the
intellect. We also need to become detached from intellectual
attachments, meaning the intellect has to learn to look dispassionately
on itself. Since I see in postmodernism some movement in this direction,
I think it is more beneficial than harmful, as long as one doesn't get
sucked up by its various foolishnesses.
As to the notion that intellect (I guess that should be Intellect)
shapes our reality, for that I have to refer you to Barfield for an
in-depth answer, also Georg Kuhlewind, both of whom I see being a
continuance of an old mystical tradition, best known from Plotinus. I
would argue that overall it is a more rational metaphysical position
than the alternatives, but since I'm not going to get into that argument
now, call it my dogma.
On "ironic metaphysics" I (idiosyncratically) mean that we acknowledge
that mystics know what's what and we don't, which means we are, by
definition, insane (out of touch with Reality). But we do have
intellect, which in at least one case (mathematics) we can be confident
that we are not fooling ourselves. So an ironic metaphysics will be more
aware of the way we have been and continue to be fooling ourselves.
Again, this is why I see postmodernism as a step in the right direction.
The difference between me and Rorty, of course, is that I have faith in
mysticism, that it is possible to become sane.
- Scott
John Beasley wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> I liked your bit on faith to Erin.
>
> However I am still struggling with your take on intellect.
>
> SCOTT: "My position (following Barfield) is that it is the intellect that
> creates that objective reality *as* objective in the first place, but
this
> is merely a stage that intellect has to go through to become aware of
> itself. The ego, however, depends on the SOM understanding, since it
is the
> ego that does the "understanding and manipulating of objective
reality". So,
> on the one hand, we need to appreciate the intellect as the shaper of
> reality, and so in a way "more real" than what is shaped, and on the
other,
> be aware that the intellect can work on itself to move beyond the limited
> subject/object form."
>
> I have feeling that you are using intellect to stand for what I might
call
> 'soul', that aspect of the person which gives continuity, that is
imprinted
> by early experience, and so on. Does this fit at all? I really have a
> problem with seeing intellect as "more real" than what is shaped.
>
> SCOTT: "It is the SOM attitude, in my opinion, that leads one to see the
> intellect as a hindrance to mystical awakening. Rather, the hindrance is
> the SOM attitude."
>
> I see the intellect as a hindrance in that it leads to obnubilation; it
> turns us in the wrong direction. The SOM attitude undoubtedly is part
of the
> barrier, but in my reading of mysticism it is often the last barrier to
> fall, not the first. I continue to doubt that there is an intellectual
> 'turn' which undoes the subject/ object divide. I suspect it is just a
> dangerous fantasy, a form of mental gymnastics. If your experience is
> different, can you elaborate on your experience, as directly and
concretely
> as possible, avoiding generalities. Perhaps communication is possible at
> this level.
>
> Can you flesh out an "ironic metaphysics"?
>
> SCOTT: "The intellect as it currently is (locked in SOT) has to
experience*
> its futility, and not just declare itself futile. The latter is nihilism.
> The former is a path."
>
> We agree here. We seem to share some fundamental assumptions, but get
hung
> up on labelling each other's position.
>
> Regards,
>
> John B
>
> PS I enjoyed your bit on Barwick. I have long been a Jaynes fan. A little
> book by Francis Barker, "The Tremulous Private Body - Essays on
Subjection",
> is very good on the transition in consciousness which he locates in the
> seventeenth century. It's a hard book to read, though.
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
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 - 10:37:55 GMT