John and Ruth and squad,
If a cow looked at
the Mona Lisa it would not even see the likeness of a person. (There is a
famous painting of
a cow examining the painting of a cow that makes this point). It is
actually what I bring to the
experience that gives me the ability to experience the value in it. Whereas
in mystic
enlightenment, it is what I do not bring that allows me to experience pure
being (or whatever
it is). So one species of value demands background, while the other
excludes it. Yet I would
argue that both can be carriers of Dynamic Quality. Somewhere here is one
source of my
disquiet with Pirsig's catch-all use of this term
Clark Writes.
John and Ruth: The cow looking at the picture of the Mona Lisa or a
picture of another cow is also experiencing DQ and will draw an updated set
of sq from it and the other influences it has upon it at the moment. It is
not necessary for it to be the same as yours. All things experience the
appropriate DQ and sq, even inantimate objects. Else how would we have a
universe to inhabit.
It is my feeling that there is no such thing as mystic enlightenment. I
feel uncomfortable with the idea of inhabiting a universe which is
illogical and over which we have no possibility of control or even
understanding. It is my feeling that DQ and sq started out very simply with
only the early H-He universe to operate on. As the universe became more
complex DQ and sq also grew in complexity. Then came life and sentient
humanity until the universe became so complex that we became incapable of
understanding it. The mysticism you mention I hold is the result of the
complexity in which we are embedded and which will continue to grow as the
universe matures.
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 - 16:02:58 BST