Platt, Roger, Horse, Rob and all Metaphysicians:
I just returned to work, where I have access to a computer, and found
lots of interesting posts. Maggie never fails to amaze me. Her
contributions always provoke thought on this end. Wish I could respond
to everything, but you probably don't have the time either... Hopefully,
we'll get to Maggie's thoughts and questions soon. I'm also anxious to
respond to Platt's comments on the hippies and moral relativism, but
will save it for another day. Until then...
A response to the continuing debate on mysticism and the intellect is
required. Several posts were addressed to me, and I'm glad to be
included in this discussion.
Thanks!
I think I'm beginning to see what Rob is struggling with because he and
Roger have been so busy discussing the problem. I'm not sure I can put
my finger on it yet, but maybe this is in the ball park... Rob, when it
comes to a matter of everyday, personal experience, an intellectual map
of the four levels is of extremely limited use. This is truly the domain
of direct experience, as in the sudden jump from the hot stove. The
reaction requires no thoughts whatsoever. You don't need a metaphysical
reason to keep your ass from getting burned. On the other hand, if you
are interested in understanding the historical conflicts in Western
civilization the levels are a great tool. The MOQ provides an
alternative context for these events. The weaknesses of SOM analysis of
these very human conflicts is revealed in Pirsig's treament of
"objective anthropology" as a total failure. SOM says value is merely
subjective. The MOQ says value is the very source of those conflicts.
The MOQ says that the key to understanding these events is to examine
the patterns of value that are involved in the struggle. Obviously,
Historical events can't ever be experienced directly. They can only be
grasped through the intellect. Evolution can't be experienced directly,
only infered by the intellect. Am I in the ball park here, Rob? Judgeing
from the quotes you gave us, Pirsig doesn't contradict what Krishnamurti
says. They have diffferent styles and approches perhaps, but they live
in the same universe. Please keep reading, more anwers are offered
below.
Platt, I'm an Alan Watts freak. Used to worshop the man. Read all his
stuff, even some funky little pamphlets published out of a book store in
the Haight Ashbury district in the late 60's. Even read his biography.
The fascination began after I graduated from college. A friend heard me
talking philosophy and religion and assumed it was all a paraphrasing of
Watts, although I'd never heard of him until that day. Read Watts on the
friend's advice and felt at home right away. I was glad you mentioned
him as one of your sources, but I never heard of the others you
mentioned.
I'd like to split some hairs with you, but first I want to smash one of
your comments with a big wooden sledgehammer. :-) You might want to put
on a bib if you're sitting in the first few rows. This could get messy.
(Ever seen Gallager?) But seriously,...
PLATT SAYS "... mystical experience is our present and ordinary state
of awareness, identical to whatever we happen to be thinking or doing at
the moment. ... It is not a particular experience, level of
consciousness or state of inner realization."
Platt, with all due respect, I think this claim is just plain wrong. If
mystical experience were identical with everyday experience, of what use
it the name? This seems to suggest that the term "mysticism" has no
meaning. Further, the quotes used to back up this notion seem unrelated
to the issue? Maybe you'll explain the connection there? In any case,
mystical experience is quite the OPPOSITE of ordinary consciousness, an
is not at all identical to it.
>From LILA page 373 "The MOQ identifies religious mysticism with
Dynamic Quality. It says the subject-object people are ALMOST right when
they identify religious mysticism with insanity.. The two are ALMOST the
same. Both lunatics and mystics have freed themselves from the
conventional intellectual patterns of their culture. The only difference
is that the lunatic has shifted over to a private static pattern of his
own, whereas the mystic has abandoned all static patterns in favor of
pure Dynamic Quality."
"INSANITY is our present and ordinary state of awareness, identical to
whatever we happen to be thinking or doin at the moment." By inserting
insanity where mysticism was, the absurdity of the claim is obvious. The
validity of such a substitution is based on the LILA quote. I believe
that Platt's claim is equally absurd for exactly the same reason. Both
insanity and mystical experience are radical departures from
"conventional intellectual patterns". Both are a shift out of ordinary
awareness.
Further, Pirsig repeatedly insists that Dynamic Quality is
pre-intellectual. He insists that reality, for the standard SOM mind, is
always mediated by the intellect. The problem his philosophy intends to
solve is this seperation, this alienation from direct experience. He's
trying to show the rational Western mind what mysticism looks like. He
knows it is a degenerate activity, but scientific Man needs to see it in
his own terms before he can begin to let those terms go.
We've all read plenty of anti-mysticism posts in this forum, which is a
relatively friendly place for such ideas. In the culture at large, it is
viewed as foolish at best. Fundamentalists actually see it as evil, a
trap set by Satan himself. The rational way to dismiss mysticism is too
easy in our culture. "Its all in your head." And the hard core
scientific thinkers? Very few take it seriously. The cultural bias
against it can hardly be overstated. Mysticism fits into none of our
conventional intellectual patterns and so we don't see it, just like the
halo light we don't see.
Now for the hair splitting part of the debate. There are shifts is
consciousness that are of a lesser impact than a full-blown mystical
experience. They are the clues, the hints, the road signs that lead one
toward a major event. Being "in the zone" is one of the most accessable
states of mind other than ordinary consciousness. Its only a little
different than intense concentration. Reading or rock climbing can
facilitate getting into the zone. On the other end of the spectrum,
Satori is very close to the mystical experience, but I understand it
means something just short of it. I imagine there is an infinite number
of variations and degrees along the way, not that the mystical
experience has any pre-required stages. In the midddle somewhere along
this continuum, there are visions, trips, and big dreams. I'm sure there
are lots of quasi-mystical states of awareness that only a monk would
know.
It can come suddenly and spontaneously. There are stories. But that is
as rare as genius and that's probably not a co-incidence. There are
musicians who need no training to achieve greatness, but most folks have
to combine their talent with a lot of hard work just to get a regular
gig. In this respect, Mysticism is not very different than any other
human activity. Jesus and Buddha were Mozarts of mysticism. And Pirsig
is... the Elvis of mysticism??
Looking forward to your response.
David
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