From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Sun Jan 09 2005 - 23:41:55 GMT
Hi dmb,
Just roll a joint instead. Maybe you could join me. It seems at times you
could use one.
And is Scott calling me "touchy feely?"
Maybe someone ought to warn him that my long hair just can't cover up my red
neck.
Maybe I threw you off a little with the right brain left brain analogy, but
I said;
"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."
I stand by this statement as I see logic and reason as stale thinking. Logic
and reason can only reason the DQ of the past, as in depending on quotes
from philosophers in our historical slicing and dicing of Western man's
intellectual mumbo jumbo, or used to help us understand the DQ experience of
the present. What is "intuitive mode?" If you read the following answer to
Platt, as to why it would seem that when looking within, " . . . we
apparently see different moral standards, based on individual life
experiences."
My answer;
Chin)I would think that the answer might be that we don't look far enough
within to get past the cultural effects of our individual life expriences.
Other than now realizing I misspelled experiences, I see nothing you could
argue with here.
I think you may be seeing words that send up a red flag, and panic thinking
"Oh my! Here we go again."
Burn one and get back to me.
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.
Sorry bud, but I must stand by that statement as well. We can lead ourselves
to DQ through logic and reason, but the DQ is still intuitive. It is
something that is already there, but we just have not been able to see it.
It is like a Verbal learning disorder. We know it, it just takes a hint of
some sort to bring it to the forefront. It is a Eureka experience where you
slap yourself on the forehead and ask "Why have I not seen that?"
This understanding is a DQ experience for me, as it answers some questions I
have never been able to answer before. The main one being Why did my son
fail during the school year, then score at the head of the class on the
standardized tests? The answer it that he has a bull shit filter built into
his thinking. As opposed to accepting whatever the teachers offer, and
changing the words enough to make them sound like his own, and offering them
back to them, he only takes in what will advance his knowledge.
A rationalist and an idealist made the trek up the mountain to see the guru
to settle their differences. Once there, the rationalist adamantly explained
his side to the guru, and the guru said "You are right." The idealist, just
as adamantly, explained his side to the guru, and the guru said "You are
right." At this, the rationalist and idealist joined sides. They said "First
you told Mr. Rational that he was right, then you told Mr. Ideal he was
right. We can't both be right." and the guru said "You are right."
If intuition is not DQ, then what is it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 1:38 PM
Subject: RE: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101
> 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
>
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 : Mon Jan 10 2005 - 00:00:17 GMT