From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jan 09 2005 - 18:38:27 GMT
Chin, msh, Scott and all MOQers:
dmb had asked all:
See what I mean? If your life depended upon correctly guessing what the
point is here, what would be your guess?
Chin tried to save his life:
That fundamental truths are known directly, and are non-sensory
intuitive. Cultural impositions such as the philosophy and religions of
Western civilizations are psychological barriers of descriptive wordings
imposed upon us by the time we reach 18. ..."Common sense is intuitive;
enough of it is genius." (George) Bernard Shaw
dmb replies:
If I hadn't noticed what you'd been saying about "intuition", I'd say this
is pretty close and your life would be spared. Unfortunately, based on the
evidence below, you should prepare to be executed at dawn. Would you like a
blindfold? Oh, no, wait. That's what got you into this mess in the first
place; a blindspot, if not a blindfold. Perhaps you'd like one last
cigarette instead? But seriously, take a look at this...
In the "intuition" thread, Chin said:
What I believe is that this mystical experience does come from the mind, in
that it is intuitive. ...What I am thinking is within two sides of the brain
working together, that one side is logic and reason, and the other side
aesthetic and intuition. The two sides of the brain do not work apart from
each other as left and right side, but communicate with each other on all
things. Logic and reason are our SQ, and beauty and intuition are our DQ
feeders.
dmb continues:
I think that here it becomes clear that the idea has still not been grasped
and the blindspot persists. And just so nobody takes this as a personal
insult, let me remind you that this accusation is not just being made by me
against Chin, but is being hurled at Western culture as a whole. At the same
time, it seems only fitting that I be specific and so, with respect to
Chin's description above, I have to say that he is still missing the point
and to the extent you agree with him, dear reader, so are you. There we see
the classic SOM terms and concepts like "mind", "brain" and "things". This
is a description of subjective feelings, emotions, perceptions, etc. This is
the Rockwellian Zen I've been complaining about. And I think this is where
we have to be very careful because this is the kind of misconception that
fools so many Westerners into thinking they understand. It emphasizes the
non-rational aspects in favor of more "intuitive" modes, but this is almost
always just a matter of asserting the romantic forms over the classical
forms, for a change. And this comes as a relief to those of us who live in
such a highly technological culture, but romantic forms are still forms.
They are still static and are habitually understood in terms of subjects
percieving an external world. But that just NOT it. This is NOT what Pirsig
or the other philosophical mystics are saying when they insist that the
primary reality "can only be apprehended by non-rational means", as Pirsig
puts it. Or as the Anglican theologian/Buddhist Alan Watt's puts it, "far
from retreating into a subjective and private world of its own, its entire
concern is to transcend subjectivity".
Chin said in the "intuition" thread:
Would it not seem that this is what Scott is saying as well? "But intellect
is the tool by which one purifies one's intellect" If the intellect were no
more than logic and reason, then there would be no 'reason' to purify what
is already reasonable.
dmb says:
Yes, Scott suffers from this same blindspot too, as this shows. See,
intellect, for us Westerners at least, is exactly what causes the blindspot.
It is not the cure or the purifier, it is the illusion to be overcome.
Intellect is what causes us to habitually interpret our experience in terms
of subjects and objects, as well as all the other dualities and divisions of
the static world. I'm not saying that a person has to become enlightened to
overcome the blindspot, although that would certainly do the trick. In this
context all we can do is deal in ideas, descriptions and metaphors. And
that's OK because philosophical mysticism is a philosophy, as set of ideas
and as such this forum is entirely adequate. See, the ideas we have about
the undivided, pre-intellectual reality are all negative ideas. That is to
say, we can only describe it in terms of what it AIN'T. And so by calling it
"undivided" we are actually saying that it is NOT divided. Its NOT a thing
nor is it made up of things so we call it "no thingness" or an
"undifferentiated continuum" And when we call it "pre-intellectual" we mean
that it is NOT intellectual. This is what really kills me about Scott's
assertion. It defies the most basic concept in philosophical mysticism so
directly and so overtly that it should be apparent even from a static,
logical point of view. By definition, so to speak, intellect and imagination
is exactly what we are NOT seeking. That is exactly what we are trying to
overcome, what we are trying to transcend. Intellect is the divider and what
we are talking about is NOT divided.
Please forgive me if I seems frustrated and impatient, but that blindspot is
one tenacious bastard. Paul's recent comments on the matter have done
wonders as a reality check, but I'd feel so much better if someone actually
had a little epiphany and could shake it off.
From the Guidebook to ZAMM, p22:
"In the spiritual traditions of both East and West..we find the claim that
eventually one must let go of the activites of thought and imagination in
order to enter a region of consciousness that such symbolic activity cannot
reach."
Pirsig in ZAMM p143:
"In all of the Oriental religions great value is placed on the Sanskrit
doctrine of Tat tvam asi, "Thou art that," which asserts that everything
you think you are and everything you think you perceive are undivided.
To realize fully this lack of division is to become enlightened."
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 : Sun Jan 09 2005 - 18:42:01 GMT