From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Jan 09 2005 - 21:26:23 GMT
DMB,
> dmb continues [to Chin]:
> 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".
[Scott:] I agree with your criticism here, insofar as mysticism should not
be seen as getting in touch with one's touchy-feely side.
>
> 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.
[Scott:] Are Plotinus, Shankara, and Merrell-Wolff also suffering from this
blind spot?. They all tout the intellect. They do not treat intellect as
something to be overcome, but as something to be purified and transformed.
Your blind spot is that you see me using the word "intellect", and all your
Watts and Pirsig-type anti-intellectual biases come into play. I might
point out that I have never claimed that Reality can be apprehended by
reason. . I am saying that Intellect (or Reason) is the Reality. (As is
Quality, of course). But it requires the logic of contradictory identity to
move one beyond the limited intellect we all have which *is* an obstacle.
It is an obstacle, but also the means for unblocking itself.
It is not a question of my having a blindspot on this issue. It is a matter
of you and I having different philosophical positions.
> 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.
It would help if you would figure out what I have been saying, instead of
assuming it is something else, and then criticizing that. You (and Pirsig,
James, Watts, and many others) derive your philosophic mysticism from the
anti-intellectual statements of many mystics. I derive mine from them but
also from the pro-intellect statements of other mystics, for example,
Plotinus, Shankara, Nagarjuna, and Merrell-Wolff. There is a sense in which
what you say is correct, namely, that one cannot with intellect come up
with a true description of Reality. And one cannot do so since intellect
works by making distinctions. However, what you are saying in your
philosophical mysticism is that Reality is the One, the "undifferentiated
continuum", or DQ. I say that this leaves one last dualism to overcome,
namely that between the One, on the one hand, and the so-called "illusion"
(the world of distinctions) on the other. This can be -- not understood,
but at least addressed -- by treating Reality as that which *creates
reality by making distinctions*. All such small-r reality is impermanent,
of course. But, the one is (and is not) the other. Your (and Pirsig's)
philosophy just divides them.
>
> 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."
Yes, this is a persistent blind spot among people who talk about mysticism.
It is rightfully aware that no symbol is the Reality, but misses that
Reality consists of the continual creation and destruction of symbols.
>
> 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."
I also agree with this, but as Coleridge put it, it is a matter of learning
to distinguish without dividing. Subject and object are one, *and* they are
subject and object.
- Scott
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 - 21:35:19 GMT