From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2005 - 18:06:20 GMT
Aha, magic ..
Ian - is mysticism just that which is not yet explained ?
Platt - Yes
DMB - No
Personally I think the real issue is not *whether* something is explained or
explicable, but *how* one believes it is / might be explained.
ie Entirely subjective (if I'm allowed to use that term).
Choice in the eye of the beholder.
QED
Ian
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:23 PM
> Subject: Re: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101
>
>
> > Ian:
> >
> > > Platt ...
> > >
> > > Ad hominem attacks ???
> > > This mail today ""As ususal DMB has ... all wrong"
> > > Other mail today "The way DMB describes .... etc"
> > > Pot & kettle perhaps ... ?
> > > Truce - however, since you're clearly in playful mood ...
> >
> > Yes, mea culpa. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll try to do better.
> >
> > > Perhaps I could glean a clue or two about inuition and mysticism.
> > > I still genuinely feel mysticism is just a pejorative label for
> something
> > > fairly straightforward.
> > >
> > > I'm happy with the idea of "pre-cognitive" knowledge ("affective" no
?)
> > > Something believed, felt, "known" ahead of conceptualising any
rational
> or
> > > empirical perceptual inputs. Is this stuff "not yet rationally
> explained"
> > > and/or "not yet experienced through the 5 external senses" all people
> mean
> > > by mysticism ?
> >
> > Yes, I think that's what mysticism means, "understanding without
> > knowledge." In other words, intuition. But there are those who say it
> > means some sort of life changing "born again" experience where suddenly
> > Reality with a capital R is revealed. I can't deny it because I've never
> > had such an experience, but then again, I can't deny near death
> > experiences or being abducted by a UFO.
> >
> > That's what arouses my suspicions about the revelation of mystics that
> > "All is One" or "Everything is interrelated." After all, ordinary
everyday
> > thought requires universals like that. For example, there must be the
> > concept of One for there to be many. Our sense perceive particulars in
> > time and place, but in order for us to have knowledge of them, we
require
> > universals such as colors, species, types, qualities, general ideas,
> > properties, classes and relations. These universals are independent of
> > perception and cannot be located in space and time. They are not part of
> > the observed world. You might call them "mystical" or Platonic. But they
> > are a necessary framework for human thought. So a revelation like "All
is
> > One" tends not only to be redundant, but a necessity if we are to think
at
> > all.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Regards,
> > 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 : Fri Jan 14 2005 - 18:10:26 GMT