Hi Roger, Struan and all
On 24 Apr 99, at 14:21, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> First, I do not disagree that Pirsig bridges rationalism and mysticism, but
> he does elevate one of them above the other, and he does it throughout the
> book. But I must define the terms. By mysticism, I mean "abandoning all
> static patterns in favor of pure Dynamic Quality" (Paraphrased almost exactly
> from p 427). It is the pursuit of "unpatterned reality" (another term Mr.
> Pirsig uses on this page). It is his code of dynamic morality, which isn't
> really a code (from Platt's quote of p188). Now that I have defined mysticism
> as this "dynamic morality", my guess knowing Horse and Platt is that they
> would agree with my clarified statement that Pirsig elevates dynamic morality
> over intellectual morality, and hence elevates mysticism DEFINED THIS WAY
> above intellect. Let me know if I am assuming too much.
"Abandoning all static patterns in favor of pure Dynamic Quality" is ,
as far as I can see the same as the 'mystic experience' which I've
been rattling on about. But there is another component to mysticism.
As Struan points out:
On 23 Apr 99, at 18:13, Struan Hellier wrote:
> 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.
Each of these tools, as far as I can see, is firmly in the intellectual
level. You're probably thinking something along the lines of "Logic!
Reason! What the hell is he going on about?" But...
Pirsig, who I would NOT describe as a mystic, per se, but certainly
as described above, describes two of his encounters with DQ or the
mystic experience. The earliest one, chronologically, was at the
Indian ceremony after taking Peyote. The later one was his insanity.
Pirsig became insane, so he tells us, through his INTELLECTUAL
quest to understand and explain Quality. This quest was fuelled by
Reason.
It would be easier to explain the approach to DQ by Logic by
replacing the term with Mathematics. Have you ever observed a
mathematician in the full flow of creation? Try applying the phrase "in
a world of their own" to the act of this form of creation. It is not at all
dissimilar to the artist, painter, musician etc. in their own act of
creation.
And music!? Roger, you mentioned a while back that you listened to
Coltrane:
On 8 Apr 99, at 21:56, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> .... or anything by John Coltrane( sometimes I think Coltrane was
> the Bebop version of a zen monk. Practicing saxophone 12 hours a
> day, even on his own intermissions. The ritual allowed him to drop
> his veils and touch heaven)....... Oh oh "Death And The Maiden"
> just started......must go
was Coltrane a mystic? Again, not in the accepted sense of the
word, but as a master of his craft. His incredible technical ability,
attained through hours of practice and, as you say, ritual, enabled
him to reach a level of DQ unattainable to most. So add this to the
toolbox of approaches to "Abandoning all static patterns in favor of
pure Dynamic Quality" or the mystic experience.
In order to extend towards pure Dynamic Quality you go through the
Intellectual level and out the other side. The static intellectual
patterns that are mastered and then abandoned are various.
Hallucinogenics, as a tool, are in some ways a short cut, but just as
effective. Hallucinogenics may be the most powerful, and potentially
dangerous, tool.
Mysticism, in the sense used in many previous posts, as an
approach, is one means of moving towards DQ, but is certainly not
the only means.
This is _part_ of what I mean about the balance between rationalism
and mysticism with neither superior to other but two aspects of the
same thing. It is also, I believe, part of the 99% (98, 97... going
down?) of the MOQ still to be discovered
> Does anyone disagree that as explained above the MOQ stresses both the
> balance and codepenency of mysticism and the levels (including the highest
> intellectual level) and the moral superiority of this mystical pursuit of DQ?
I think we need to broaden, or at least clarify, the terminology in this
department. As it is, it is still too vague and will just lead to further
misuse and confusion.
> One final point. Like Horse, I agree that a 5th level is possible. In an
> evolutionary metaphysics, as patterned reality evolves, the encyclopedia
> evolves too. However, if a 5th level does arise, it will be post intellectual
> and hence post metaphysical. However it will not be post experiential. If
> another level emerges, it will be more dynamic and more moral and hence more
> mystical (as defined above). BUT, the 5th level will not be added to our
> metaphysics, it will replace our metaphysics with a higher-level, more
> dynamic system of patterns. The 5th level will not be intellectually or
> metaphysically describable, but it will be capable of describing or
> containing the levels below.
>
> The 5th level will embrace itself and the preceding levels, but it will
> redefine all 5 levels into its own terms. The 5th level won't be added to
> the MOQ, it will replace the MOQ.
If and/or when a fifth level does arise we probably won't even
recognize it. How could we?
Horse
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