From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jan 10 2005 - 22:58:31 GMT
Platt)Point well made, Chin. It looks more and more like mystic experience
is
like animal experience, i.e., without concepts. But, as usual, DMB has the
meaning of "intuition" all wrong. From Merriam-Webster:
1 : quick and ready insight
2 a : immediate apprehension or cognition b : knowledge or conviction
gained by intuition c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct
knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference
Intuition is knowledge, cognition without thought, or as I've said, what
we know before we know anything else.
Chin)I would agree intuition is before conscious thought, but not above
abilities of conscious thought; just abilities of conscious knowing.
Though there was a little wink, wink, style sarcasm in that statement, it
was not meant to deny the fact that philosophology has confused concepts
such as intuition. I feel we may have been better off if the philosophers
would have left the meaning of intuition alone. Maybe I am beginning to
believe it may be better to do so myself. What I have seen in other
discussion forums is that those who do not fully understand your position
will tend to misunderstand what you are saying to the point of drawing their
own conclusions which are totally different that what you are trying to
point at.
The original definition for intuition before Socrates of the sophists was
that this direct knowing was grasp by the way of intelligence as opposed to
the senses. This is what I meant by intuition being like a nonverbal
learning disorder. You already have this knowledge in you, it is just a
matter of bringing it out.
I can't say this with any certainty, as intuition from Socrates on 'Has'
managed to confuse the issue more than define intuition in any way. To
reduce it to instinct is what I am saying when I say we can reduce our
intelligence to animalistic instinct. This to me is not a good route to go
to understanding a higher intellect. To a degree, we may have built into us
a better system for dealing with our intelligence through evolution of man;
an ability to better pull to the forefront knowledge we already have. It is
my belief each generation becomes more intelligent than the last, and this
due natural evolution of understanding of concepts as opposed to animalistic
instincts.
I can carry this further, as it seems to me all cultures are struggling with
this understanding, and trying to place their own beliefs into what this
means when it happens. Maybe it would be best that I left it defined as
cultural limitations of understanding for the moment until I see what will
be attacked from what I have already said.
(as usual, all attacks are welcome)
Chin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101
> Hi Chin, DMB, All:
>
> > Phaedrus Wolff asked:
> > If intuition is not DQ, then what is it?
> >
> > dmb replies:
> > Instinct. A hunch. A feeling. Its a vague word and should be avoided by
> > philosophers for that reason, especially if we are trying to distinguish
> > instincts and feelings from a mystical experience.
> >
> > Wolff) That'll do as well as Chin, thanks for the new nickname. I guess
it
> > is possible we could reduce ourselves to nonintellectual animals. Point
> > well taken.
>
> Point well made, Chin. It looks more and more like mystic experience is
> like animal experience, i.e., without concepts. But, as usual, DMB has the
> meaning of "intuition" all wrong. From Merriam-Webster:
>
> 1 : quick and ready insight
> 2 a : immediate apprehension or cognition b : knowledge or conviction
> gained by intuition c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct
> knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference
>
> Intuition is knowledge, cognition without thought, or as I've said, what
> we know before we know anything else.
>
> Furthermore, does it strike anyone else as ironic to say the least that it
> seems to the require an outpouring of verbiage to describe something that
> it's claimed can't be verbalized, or that those who rail against reason
> and logic in favor of a mystic view of reality structure their arguments
> solely on reason and logic?
>
> Oh well. The ongoing debate about the nature of mysticism provides much
> entertainment. As Pirsig notes, "pure fun" and Dynamic Quality go
> together.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 - 23:13:52 GMT