RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Jan 01 2005 - 19:29:27 GMT

  • Next message: MarshaV: "Re: MD If not now, when???"

    Sam, Mark and all MOQers:

    Sam Norton asked dmb:
    Are you able to explain, to such a dunder-head as I, in words of few
    syllables, and preferably less than about 20 of them, what you understand to
    be 'non-traditional mysticism'. I find that I sometimes drown in your
    torrent of words, only some of which pertain to the point at issue.

    dmb says:
    The most basic notion is described in a single sentence. "Philosophical
    mysticism, the idea that truth is indefinable and can be apprehended only by
    non-rational means, has been with us since the beginning of history."
    (Pirsig in ZAMM, p25) In Lila this truth, this mystical and undivided
    reality, is Dynamic Quality while rationality and definitions belong to the
    divided and static world.

    Likewsie, Plotinus says, "of this One no descripton nor scientific knowledge
    is possible" and "he who wishes to see the Intelligible must abandon all
    imagery of the perceptible in order to contemplate what is beyond the
    perceptible, so he who wishes to contemplate what is beyond the Intelligible
    will attain the contemplation of it by letting go everything intelligible".

    See, the thing about SOM is that it convinces us that subjects and objects
    are so undeniable real as the basic facts of reality. We look at a thing and
    are utterly certain that it is real because we can see it. We imagine that
    light bounces off of the material and in to our eyes and that this sensory
    data is the first thing we have from which all other knowledge proceeds. And
    this is an excellent and useful way to see the world. I'm not suggesting we
    give it up, especially not during rush-hour traffic. But what Pirsig and so
    many others are saying is that we "see" the world through concepts. As we
    mature from infancy we are told over and over that this or that is hot or
    cold, that this thing is not the same as that thing, red thing, blue thing,
    lovely thing, scary thing, etc., etc.. And so what we imagine to be the raw
    empirical data of the world is actually the conceptual shape we give to our
    perceptions. We have to go through a series of deductions to picture the
    world in terms of subjects and objects, but we have done it so many times
    that it is completely automatic and we don't even notice it anymore. Its
    just a part of the way we think. It is our inherited cultural filter. Its
    not just an opinion that we can easily trade in for another, it shapes all
    our perceptions on a more fundamental level and provides the very thought
    categories with which we think about the world. What we usually fail to
    realize is that we have created the static world in response to DQ, which is
    the ineffable ground, the primary empirical reality. Instead we think that
    divided static world is the ground and the primary reality.

    And so even when we are told in explicit terms that the mystical experience
    is all about overcoming subjectivity and the illusory ego self, we are so
    used to thinking in terms of subjects and objects that we often then ask,
    "well then who is having the mystical experience?" And of course this only
    shows that one is trying to understand the pre-intellectual reality in terms
    of concepts, in terms of subjectivity.

    Subjects and objects are things, see? And this is one of the reasons that DQ
    is also called Nothingness. If we think of Nothingness as the reality that
    preceds subjects and objects, as the pre-intellectual reality, as the
    undivided and undifferentiated reality, then we start to understand that
    Nothingness is not just black empty space, but is no-THING-ness. This is
    also why we call it the One and oppose it to the many, the world of things,
    otherwise known as the maya or world of illusion. The very same idea is made
    in refering to DQ as "pure", "simple" and "direct". Pirsig is not saying DQ
    is super clean, uncomplicated or straitforward with these terms. No, they
    all speak to this same idea of an undivided reality, reality before it is
    percieved through cultural metaphysical assumptions, before it is divided up
    into static patterns of any kind.

    I could have stopped with the quotes from Pirsig and Plotinus. Everything
    after that is just an attempt to explain that first basic idea.
    Philosophical mysticism is "the idea that truth is indefinable and can be
    apprehended only by non-rational means."

    Thanks,
    dmb

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 19:32:30 GMT