From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Jan 10 2005 - 01:07:49 GMT
Scott and all:
dmb said:
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 replied:]
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.
dmb says:
The blindspot is in your view of Plotinus, not in Plotinus himself. As I've
tried to explain several times, the substance of his postion is not
different from Pirsig's. As you may recall from THE ONE Plotinus says, "of
this One no descripton nor scientific knowledge is possible." He also says
the ONE "is inaudible, not to be understood through hearing, and if by and
sense at all by vision alone. But if the eye that sees seeks to behold a
form it will not descry even this." In his ancient way, he is saying just
what Pirsig is saying, which is the idea that defines philosophical
mysticsm; "the idea that truth is indefinable and can be
apprehended only by non-rational means", as Pirsig puts it.
Scott continued:
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 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.
dmb replies:
Yea, we have different positions. I think you're confused and you think
you're not confused. But seriously, Scott, to say that "intellect" is the
obstacle to "Intellect", or that "Reason" is the non-rational means is a
very confusing way to put it - AT BEST. In a less generous moment I might
say it is just plain wrong. You pal Franklin Merrell-Wolff says the same
thing about intellect and conceptual understandings that we just heard from
Pirsig and Plotinus. And he says them in the very quotes you provided! Of
the mystical experience he says, "The first phase is highly noetic but
superconceptual." Surely "superconceptual" refers to that which is to be
distinguished from the merely "conceptual". And for those who might doubt
such a reading, there is the footnote...
[Merrell-Wolff's Footnote: By "superconceptual" I mean beyond the form of
all possible concepts that can be clothed in words. However, the nature of
this knowledge is nearer to that of our purest concepts than it is to
perceptual consciousness.]
dmb continues:
Let me repeat that for you. Superconceptual means "beyond the form of all
possible concepts". "Pre-intellectual" is another descriptive word for that
which is beyond concepts. Non-rational, superconceptual, preintellectual and
lots of other negative descriptions like this all refer to the same idea.
They are different labels for the same can of worms. The idea is to describe
a form of consciousness that is NOT rational, intellectual, conceptual. And
we use those terms to describe what this consciousness is NOT. We are
talking about consciousness of a different sort, a non-subjective sort, not
a blank vacuum or death or unconsciousness. The noetic or "knowledge
imparting" nature of this experience might be COMPARED to conceptual
understandings, as your pal does so well, but this is really a description
by contrast. I think its pretty clear that he's saying that its way beyond
intellect in the normal sense of the word when he says, "It is the compacted
essence of thought, the "sentences" of which would require entire lifetimes
for their elaboration in objective form and yet remain unexhausted at the
conclusion of such effort. In my relative consciousness, I knew that I KNEW
in cosmical proportions. However, no brain substance could be so refined as
to be capable of attunement to the grand cosmical tread of those Thoughts."
Scott continued:
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.
dmb replies:
As I already tried to demonstrate and explain above, we are not in two
different schools of thought here. The mystics that inform your view are
saying the same thing as the mystics that inform my view and in fact there
is a great deal of overlap. (I should addd that this fact makes you even
more guilty than the rest of the blindspotters. Do you like the sword or
would you prefer to be shot? Decapitation seems more fitting for a guy who
won't give up on dividedness, but its your choice by law. See you at dawn in
either case.) But let me say a few words about your request for
understanding. Normally, I'd say that understanding is a necessary
pre-requisite for criticism. But in this case, my criticism is all about the
difficulty of doing just that, of understanding what you're trying to say.
Intellect is an obstacle to Intellect? Reason is the non-rational means?
C'mon Scott. Its like you WANT to make no sense. And then there is the idea
that these other mystics are different from and hostile to Pirsig's postion.
Its simply not true. And you've made a mess of things with these confusions.
Scott said to dmb:
...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.
dmb replies:
There you go again. Reality creates reality? Why do you insist on using
terms with dual and contradictory meanings? If one is to be distinguished
from the other, why not use two different terms? Its like you WANT your
readers to be confused. Its like you hate clarity and have devoted your life
to stamping it out. And I have already mentioned the idea that static and
dynamic are among the dualisms and divisions to be overcome. I've mentioned
it many times, in fact, and have quoted several mystics who say the same
thing. Philosophy divides them because that's what philosophy does, it
divides. But in Pirsig's case the division was selected for its ability to
bring mysticism within a rational system. And within that system, it is
asserted that reality is ultimately undivided and it is only the philosophy
that has divisions, not reality, which is One. In fact, Pirsig explains this
in the opening chapters of Lila as he leads up to the first division, the
static/Dynamic split. So again, I think this is confusing at best and it
could be less generously described as just plain wrong. That would be less
generous, but it would still be accurate.
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."
Scott responded to the Guidebook:
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.
dmb says:
Again with the non-sense. Sigh. Look, if "Reality" is undivided and
"reality" is divided, then you are saying that undividedness "consists of
the continual creation of" divisions. If DQ is undifferentiated and static
quality is the world of differentiations, then you are saying that
Nothingness "consists of the continual creation of" things. This is not a
paradox. Its just very bad logic and an even worse understanding of the
concepts involved. By way of some distorted version of the logic of
contradictory identity you have managed to obliterate every major
distinction and distort every major concept in philosophical mysticism. It
makes me crazy. Here's just one more example of your intellectual
vandalism...
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."
Scott responds to Pirsig:
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.
dmb says:
I get the impression that this is supposed to deepen Pirsig's comments in
the same way, through this psuedo-paradoxical non-sense. Distinguish without
dividing? More like a distinction without a difference! Making distinctions
is exactly what divides! That's the whole idea and once again you have only
destroyed it with confusing contradictions. Dude, you don't even understand
your own supporting material. If you could read it properly, you'd see that
its actually Pirsig's supporting material.
Nothing personal. You seem like a very nice guy. Really. But when it comes
to these issues, I'm pretty sure you've mixed things up and mixed them up
quite badly.
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 - 01:18:54 GMT