John, Platt, Bill and all MOQers:
Mr. Beasley, I'm flattered by your kind words, but that isn't the reason
I want to encourage you to remain active in this forum. I always look
forward to reading your input, even if we disagree. In fact, it seems to
me that the most productive and rewarding conversations involve some
measure of conflict. Zealots and preachers don't care for real dialouge,
but philosopers do, if you know what I mean. Please stay. I'm begging
you. Now I should get off my knees and address the issues...
I'm glad you moved the soul discussion over to this forum because I
could not imagine how to address the most interesting parts without
going way off of the topic. (But BO won't see this unless we send it to
him. He doesn't subscribe to this side.) And thanks for the Jaynes,
which does seem to explain alot about the formation of SOM. Did you see
the post on the battle between organizational Rome and mystical
Alexandria? I think its another way of describing an emergence of the
same kind of split, or is at least an associated phenoenea. I was kinda
proud of that posting, but no one seemed to notice. Anyway....
In chapter 26, Pirsig talks alot about the nature of sanity, insanity
and the cultural influences that define those two terms. Its well worth
re-reading. He discusses the relativity of "around", (the squirrel, the
tree and the man) the "green flash" that he had to be told to see, the
Cleveland harbor effect and the Dharmakya light all in reference to the
cultural immune system and other static filters.
On page 338 of the hard back edition, he says, "In other cultures, or in
the religious literature of our past, where the immune system of
"objectivity" is weak or non-existent, reference to this light
(dharmakaya) is everywhere, from the Protestant hymn, "Lead Kindly
Light," to the halos of the saints. The central terms of Western
mysticism, "enlightenment," and "illumination" refer to it directly. ...
Descriptions of Zen sartori mention it. It is refered to extensively in
The Tibetan Book of the Dead. Aldous Huxley referred to it as part of
the mescaline experience. Phaedrus remembered it from the time with
Dusenberry at the peyote meeting,..." He also mentions El Greco and
Blake, who both saw the light.
We became blinded to the light, literally and figuratively, by
historical processes. In other words, as our culture developed we began
to filter it out and now hardly anyone acknowledges its existence,
except at new age conventions.
I think this suggests that the intellect in not inherently blind to such
things, it is just that OUR PARTICULAR SOM INTELLECT is blind. This
notion undermines Bo's SOLAQI idea, but doesn't destroy it. Pirsig
explains that this kind of blindness persists in spite of and contrary
to empirical evidence witnessed by countless people besides Blake,
Huxley and El Greco
Uh Oh, I got to go. Much more later.
Hugs and 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 - 16:03:07 BST