From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jan 23 2005 - 21:12:36 GMT
>From: David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: "'moq_discuss@moq.org'" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: RE: MD Further comments to Matt
>DWon Chinrester concluded:
Mystic reality is either in man or out there. It is either already built
into man's psyche, there to be discovered when you strip away culture and
ego, or it is out there in the universe which opens up to allow
enlightenment. If it is "no-mind," then it is intuitive, or it is external.
What you think?
dmb replies:
I think you're trying to describe it in terms of SOM. The mystic reality is
not in or out of anything. One of the reasons I object to the use of words
like "instinct" and "intuition" to describe the undivided reality is that
they tend to conjure up the idea of subjective perceptions, of egos and gut
feelings and emotional reactions. And that leads to ideas of "in there" and
"out there". Again, the form of consciousness I'm talking about is
consistently described as an absence of exactly those divisions.
But I appreciate your no-longer-silent cheerleading. Would it be OK if I
picture you in a varsity sweater waving pompoms? And if its not too much to
ask, may I imagine that its a very tight sweater and you're also in a short,
pleated skirt? With no bloomers?
Chin Ronwhisker;
If you will quit calling me SOMistic, then I'll be more than happy to remove
the bloomers from under my short pleated skirt.
If I may offer what I think you are trying to say is that the SQ would the
the intuitive humanistic instinct, that which remains after stripping away
the culture and ego, and the DQ is the enlightenment from Quality (Value)
which is the source of DQ(?)
ate: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:30:39 -0700
>
>Wolff and all MOQers:
>
>"Phædrus remembered a line from Thoreau: "You never gain something but that
>you lose something." And now he began to see for the first time the
>unbelievable magnitude of what man, when he gained power to understand and
>rule the world in terms of dialectic truths, had lost. He had built empires
>of scientific capability to manipulate the phenomena of nature into
>enormous
>
>manifestations of his own dreams of power and wealth...but for this he had
>exchanged an empire of understanding of equal magnitude: an understanding
>of
>
>what it is to be a part of the world, and not an enemy of it."
>
>Ron ChinWester said:
>The Good is built into man's nature. From prehistoric times, from before
>your theory of when philosophy began, the Good has always been there. It is
>intuitive, and yes, it is instinct. It is not an anamalistic instinct that
>is pointed toward survival, but a human instinct; one that puts the well
>being of others before the well being of self. It is the instinct built
>into
>
>man that will throw a man in front of a fast moving car to save the life of
>a child, or a puppy. It is the instinct that will send a man up a flight of
>stairs in a burning building to save another human being he has not met. It
>is the instinct of man that will place him in front of a rain forest
>defying
>
>a line of bull dozers that are determined to tear it down, or of a biker
>who
>
>will lay out a good Christian man for striking his own child for something
>this good Christian man sees as embarrasing, and the child must be put in
>line.
>
>dmb says:
>The noble sentiments here are almost enough to convince, but then you end
>by
>saying, in effect, that The Good is a vigilante who kicks hick ass. Surely
>that's not what Plato was saying. Don't get me wrong, I do think there are
>times when "no-mind" is revealed. Campbell talks about this. The mother
>doesn't think about death or injury or even what "she" is capable of, she
>just lifts that car and grabs the baby. When someone spontaneously leaps to
>the aid of a stranger or otherwise forgets one's self. And its not just the
>superhuman strength or the willingness to sacrifice one's self, but the
>reports of those who go through the experience. They didn't have time to
>think, they'll tell you. No time to be afraid. Didn't occur to me that it
>was impossible. Anybody would have done the same thing, they all say. And
>it
>happened to me once. A friend caught on fire when I was just a boy, we must
>have been 10 or 11 years old, and I can tell you that courage and morality
>and I had nothing to do with it. It just happened. It was like I watched my
>hands put him out. And I suppose its possible that a hick child abuser
>could
>get his butt kicked spontaneously, but I think we have to be careful not to
>confuse this kind of thing with mere animal outrage. Imagine if everyone
>thought they could act on impulse and pass out justice accordingly.
>
>Win Chinmeister continued:
>The intuition of man is pointed toward the Good of man, of animal, of
>earth.
>
>This is why Pirsig so identifies with the Native American. It is the
>respect
>
>of the Good dog, of the Good turkey that the Native American feels the need
>to give thanks to; not the Creator, but the turkey, and the earth, and the
>Creator.
>
>dmg replies:
>Pirsig also warns us about the myth of the noble savage, warns that the
>romanintic ideal of a natural man has been a disaster. Campbell and Wilber
>ring that same alarm. Don't get me wrong. Nature is taking a real trashing
>and our culture certainly could stand to improve its attitudes toward the
>earth and all living things, but I think you're talking about static good,
>static quality here.
>
>Ren Winchinster continued:
>As opposed to saying "no-mind," maybe we could say 'New-mind'; one that has
>not been corrupted by culture, science, and philosophy. Or else, we can say
>this Quality is out there. It is not in the mind. Man does not know it, he
>has to reach 'Out there' through meditation. I would prefer to think that
>he
>
>reaches in there; in there to a Quality that resides in man. This same
>Quality resides in everything on earth, and in the universe.
>
>dmb replies:
>See what I mean. Nature is great, but culture, science and philosophy
>corrupt us? That formulation pretty much defines anti-intellectualism and
>is
>one of the chief dangers of this kind of romantic degeneracy. Fascists and
>Hippies have both fallen for that one. With respect to Quality being "out
>there" or "in there", I'd simply say that the no-mind experience is very
>consistently described by mystics as an absence of such distinctions. But,
>yes, I think the idea of the MOQ is that Quality is completely ubiquitous.
>The distinctions between static and Dynamic are crucial here of course, but
>the divisions within the static side remain in place too. I mean, nature
>and
>intellect are both part of the static world and exist in a heirarchy and
>this moral relationship is not undone or dismantled by mysticism.
>Transcendence isn't destructive of degenerate.
>
>Won Chinrester concluded:
>Mystic reality is either in man or out there. It is either already built
>into man's psyche, there to be discovered when you strip away culture and
>ego, or it is out there in the universe which opens up to allow
>enlightenment. If it is "no-mind," then it is intuitive, or it is external.
>What you think?
>
>dmb replies:
>I think you're trying to describe it in terms of SOM. The mystic reality is
>not in or out of anything. One of the reasons I object to the use of words
>like "instinct" and "intuition" to describe the undivided reality is that
>they tend to conjure up the idea of subjective perceptions, of egos and gut
>feelings and emotional reactions. And that leads to ideas of "in there" and
>"out there". Again, the form of consciousness I'm talking about is
>consistently described as an absence of exactly those divisions.
>
>But I appreciate your no-longer-silent cheerleading. Would it be OK if I
>picture you in a varsity sweater waving pompoms? And if its not too much to
>ask, may I imagine that its a very tight sweater and you're also in a
>short,
>pleated skirt? With no bloomers?
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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 23 2005 - 22:21:34 GMT