Struan, Horse, Kevin and Gang:
I've learned an important lesson. Rhetorical questions don't translate
well on the net and are easyly misunderstood as actual queries. I was
only raising the question -"What is the mystical view of reality?"- in
order to answer it. My answer to those in search of a rational
explaination for mysticism is "Read Pirsig". Apparently, my poor writing
skills have caused each of you to miss my point completely. I wasn't
asking for a rational definition of mysticism, I was insisting that Lila
is a rational explaination of mysticism. This is my main point, one that
I've tried to express on several occassions in the last 6 months. I'm
saying that one of the most difficult problems Pirsig hoped to fix was
SOM's inability to deal with mysticism. Pirsig practically invented the
new metaphysic in order to accomodate mysticism, and more specifically
his own break with sanity as well as the peyote trip with the indians.
All from Bantam's hardcover edition of LILA....
Page 107 "By even using the term "Quality" he had alreay violated the
nothingness of mystic reality... Even the name, ""Quality," was a kind
of definition since it tended to associate mystic reality with certain
fixed and limited understandings."
Page 109 "American Indian mysticism is the same platypus in a world
divided primarily into classic and romantic patterns as under a
subject-object divison... Since this whole metaphysics had started with
an attempt to explain Indian mysticism Phaedrus finally abandoned this
classic-romatic split as a choice for a primary divison to the
metaphysics of Quality" (static & Dynamic instead)
Page 377 "..once this integration occurs and DQ is identified with
religious mysticism it produces an avalanche of information as to what
DQ is."
Page 408 "Phaedrus hoped this Quality metaphysics was something that
would get past the immune system and show that American Indian mysticism
is not something alien from American culture. It's a deep submerged
hidden root of it"
I'm not tring to make a connection where Pirsig failed. I think he
already made the connection before I read his ideas. I'm simply trying
to point out what the author thinks. One need not add any new info to
make the point, although I was trying to do that too. Campbell, Jung,
Capra, are some of my favorite thinkers and they are extremely
sympathetic to Pirsig's mysticism. (As I see it.) There are countless
expressions of the same view in music, poerty, movies, and most art
forms, but those three are quasi-scientific and thought they'd appeal to
you.
Horse asks me if I am "differentiating between the
religous/secular/shamanistic view" (of mysticism). I really don't know
if there is such a thing as secular mysticism, but even the religious
mystics see theology as a transparent metaphor that refers to an
undefinable mystery. (DQ) I'd say the only difference between
contemporary mystics and shamanism is a matter of social evolution. I
believe that powerful role of shamen of primary cultures has shattered
into many seperate roles. In the modern world the role of shaman is
played by preists, actors, comedians, psychotherapists, cheif executives
and others.
Kevin; I disagree with mysticism as a seperate level of static patterns
because the mystical vision is Dynamic, which is unpatterned by
definition. But more importantly, your efforts are misplaced because
mysticism is not a platypus in the MOQ, mysticism is at the very center
and heart of the MOQ already. You need not find a special place for it.
Pirsig has already done that.
Struan: If there were no MOQ, you'd be correct. But the kind of
reasoning you displayed in rejecting mysticism in favor of a rational
approach is exactly what Pirsig was trying to overturn with his MOQ.
Your post was clear and strong, but it seems you simply reject the
entire premise of Pirsig's work. You view seems unflinchingly SOM. On
another issue, you said "mysticism would rank as the lowest form of
intellect". I disagree with this. I'd argue that the mystical reality
can be experienced by people who don't have the ability to understand
what has happened to them. And as Pirsig says, A lot of religious
mysticism is just low-grade yelping about God. "but if you search for
the sources of it and don't take the yelps too literally a lot of
interesting things turn up." (page 377) I'd say the full blown mystic
is far beyond the standard intellectual, as far beyond as the
intellectual is compared to an illiterate person. The full blown mystic
has all the intuition and reason of the intellectual, and then some. The
mystic has developed insight, introspection, a literary imagination, a
subtle and sensitive mind that makes mere intellect seem like child's
play. ( I'm NOT making any claims about myself here.)
I'd very very grateful if you'd respond to the Pirsig quotes and my main
point; that the MOQ is a rational definition of mysticism.
In any case, thanks for your time.
Wet sloppy kisses,
David B.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:56 BST