LS Re: Conceptions of Dynamic Quality


Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Thu, 26 Feb 1998 03:37:04 +0100


Diana wrote:

> Indeed it doesn't. We most certainly can understand reality. We can
> understand it completely and perfectly. Saying we are "part of" reality
> is as much an SOM point of view as saying that we are separate from
> reality. In the context of Dynamic Quality we are not separate from
> reality and we are not part of reality, we *are* reality. There is no
> difference. To be precise we shouldn't even say "we are reality", we
> should say "reality is"
>
> It's only in an intellectual sense that we can't understand it. As a
> Dynamic understanding doesn't make the intellectual distinctions
> necessary to explain what reality is, the question goes unanswered. All
> the Buddha can say is "See for yourself".

This admits to some form of understanding that is nonintellectual, yet
empirical.

Pirsig hints at a level beyond the intellectual level, a "code of art."
The
Buddha says, "See for yourself," a directive shared by art.

Hmm. Maybe there's a need for another level after all, one that "sees"
the
beautiful and profound, one that is more open, free, encompassing and
unifying, one that surpasses intellectual understanding yet is
understood.

I'm working on it, but need help. Is the Metaphysics of Quality itself
this
new level? Can it only be fully understood at a level beyond the
intellectual? In the end is all we can really say about the MoQ is,
"Read
'Lila' and see for yourself.?"

Platt

Catch 43: Truth is culturally determined.

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:48 CEST