Greetings,
KEVIN WROTE (to Platt):
"I am always bemused at how many members of our dialogue constantly refer
only to the parts of Pirsig's work that they agree with, missing the bigger
picture."
(Followed by a list of parts of Pirsig's work which miss the bigger picture)
KEVIN THEN WROTE:
"These should suffice to prove my point."
It does Kevin, beautifully. (Sorry - cheap shot:-)
HORSE WROTE:
"I do not accept Kevin's hypothesis that there is a fifth level beyond
Intellect as he (and others) confuse and conflate the mystic (the
vessel), mysticism (the approach) and mystic experience ( -> DQ).
So far I have seen no convincing argument from Kevin to make me
believe otherwise - and I think this is the point you (Struan) were
making about mysticism?"
Yes, although you have put it better than I - its the apathy you know. Human beings are contained
within the static patterns. They have various approaches to seeking dynamic quality (which they
recognise instinctively, enjoy and thus pursue) including mysticism, logic, reason, meditation and
(for some) taking drugs. 'Mysticism' is therefore a TOOL similar to drugs and a 'mystic' is one who
uses that tool. If I were to propose a drugs level above the intellectual level I would commit
precisely the same mistake Kevin makes. I could claim that drugs are a higher level than the
intellect because they are nearer to dynamic quality. Clearly drugs are the next step of evolution
and they are equally clearly a form of static quality. They don't fit in the intellectual level or
the social level or the biological level, although they do rely upon it and they are closer to DQ
than the intellectual level etc etc etc. QED!!
Er. . No. This is of course preposterous. What I have done is conflate the experience of DQ (the
goal of taking the drug) with the tool of choice (the drug) with the experiencer (the taker). A
mysticism level is just as ridiculous as it, likewise, literally doesn't make sense - not even on a
linguistic level. It is noticeable that Kevin slips easily between calling it a 'mystic' level and a
'mysticism' level when what he really argues for is a 'mystical experience' level - the only form he
hasn't used, and for good reason. An 'experience' is what levels (more accurately, patterns of value
which combine levels) 'have' (in the broadest sense). They 'experience' each other and DQ. Thus an
experience CANNOT itself BE a level. It is logically impossible and the whole house of cards comes
crashing down.
I think that you (Horse) are right to imply that we should move on. I suspect your observation that
most people see this whole topic as a bizarre and superficial distraction is correct, but it has
been going on so long now that something had to be done.
Tell you what, I'll start a new thread and hope that this keeps, "TwoGun0730," happy. (Thanks by the
way).
Take your vote Kevin. Any philosophy which relies upon the ballot box for its veracity is in deep
trouble.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@shellier.freeserve.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
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