ROGER REPLIES TO PLATT'S EXCELLENT CONTRIBUTION ON
THE EXPERIENCE/INTELLECT CONTROVERSY
To Platt, Rob, David and the Usual Suspects
Platt Writes:
>>>>To begin I want to take issue with David's and Roger's seeming
implication that mystical experience is somehow different from everyday,
ordinary experience. David said that the "mystical experience comes
after a lot of work.” Roger said, "Mystical experience and intellectual
advancement are two re-enforcing dimensions of the path."
Both Roger and David seemed to jump to the conclusion that the
"sensitive person" must necessarily be more of a mystic than an
intellectual who is "well-versed in the MOQ," thus setting up an either/or
situation between mysticism and intellectualism which they both rightly
knocked down as a false dichotomy, but on different grounds than the
one I describe above. The grounds I choose were well expressed by
Roger in his post of Feb. 27:
"Intellectual experience and thoughts are just as much a form of
Direct Experience (i.e., mysticism, Dynamic Quality, the "now")
as is any other experience." (Parens added)>>>>>>>>
I always love chatting with you, Platt, because of the way you help me to
clarify my thoughts. Please allow me to try to rephrase the issue. First, I
agree that part of the confusion on the issue stems from trying to separate
Direct Experience from the process of thinking. And I agree completely that
mystical reality is the everyday experience. Logically, I see knowing as a
subset of Direct Experience, and therefore see DE as being primary.
Pirsig and Buddhists both refer to the unconditioned Direct Experience of a
new born baby. As time goes on, the baby adapts and molds to the experience.
Static patterns are formed. Eventually, many of us get so solidly formed that
we resist and screen out change. We use our pattern to resist DQ.
Remember Walter's thought experiment on the Grandma with Alzheimer's? Every
weekend when he went to visit it would be a fresh new first time experience
for her, and a static stale experience for him. She was pure DQ with no sq, he
was sq with very little DQ. I THINK THE ESSENCE OF THE MOQ IS A BALANCE
BETWEEN THESE TWO.
I believe the Good is to embrace DQ or Direct Experience and to allow your
static pattern to grow dynamically. So putting it this way, I view Rob's
question as a choice between static knowledge of the MOQ and dynamic embrace
of Experience.
Using this model, I can divide people into some clear groups:
1) Many people are closed to new learning and resist dynamic change. They
would probably not even pick Lila up.
2) Some people are extremely dynamic and open to experience, but just have not
come across the MOQ.
3) A lot of people have read Lila, but have not opened themselves to grow
dynamically through the experience. They filtered it out. It is too radical.
4) Some people understand Lila, but then 'close down' to future DQ and
rationalize everything within their current paradigm. I suspect this is the
beast which Rob is concerned with.
5) The desired state is to be open to experience and knowledge. To learn of
and benefit from the MOQ (which IMHO is a milestone in the Universe's journey
of understanding itself). This understanding is then used to continue to grow
dynamically.
I suggest Rob's dilemma is between #4 and # 2. I believe there is more quality
in #2 than in #4. Of course, I believe we would both agree that #5 is the
optimal state.
Platt and David and Rob, do you agree with my reframing of the problem? And,
regardless, what are your thoughts on this reframe?
Roger
************************************************************
“If you understand, things are just as they are.
If you do not understand, things are just as they are.”
"To attain perfection of absolute beauty--to see or hear a sight or sound
which cannot have been unfamiliar to
angels."
***********************************************************
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:53 BST