John,
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
You ask "How do you talk to 'illusory minds..." Indeed. How do I, stuck
in illusion, talk about anything with any confidence?
The way I address this problem is to adopt two principles from religion,
one Buddhist and one Christian. The Buddhist one is the Doctrine of Two
Truths, the first truth being that known by the Awakened Buddha, and the
second conventional truth. The latter, while not absolute, is stable
enough (ie made up of static patterns) that it can be studied and talked
about. The Christian principle is that of Original Sin, though I take it
not in the disobedience and punishment sense of tradition, but as a
harsh reminder that I am stuck in illusion (a conclusion reachable
without revelation, for example through consideration of the paradoxical
nature of ordinary consciousness). But being stuck in illusion, I am
dependent on revelation to guide me. However, because I am in a
pluralist environment, I cannot honestly just accept the tradition I
happened to grow up in, but must select from the many revelations
available. Hence I am required to use reason to make that selection, and
(skipping a long discussion) have done so, though always aware that my
conclusions are more or less tentative. And so on, using reason, for
example, to decide whether, if a revelation contradicts conventional
truth, conventional truth needs to be modified (eg on MOQ lines) or
discard the revelation.
Now the issue that we seem to be disagreeing on is the role intellect
has in breaking through to one's own revelation. In particular, many
sources say that intellect is a hindrance. However, others say the
opposite, that it is a help (though never that SOT is all you need).
Examples of the latter are Nagarjuna, Shankara, Rudolf Steiner, and
Franklin-Merrell Wolff. This help is both negative and positive. The
negative (eg Nagarjuna) is deconstructive, that is, by applying SOT to
itself, one brings out its paradoxical nature, or perhaps one can say,
one uncovers presuppositions that are the structure of the illusion,
that keep us bound. Or one uses intellect to "discriminate between the
permanent and the impermanent" (Shankara), in particular to see one's
ego as the latter.
(An aside: You say "I've always though that in a way it was mystic
perception of truth that created 'paradoxes', (which are part of the SOT
framework)". Well, I can tell you that it wasn't mystic perception, but
plain old ordinary reason that informed me that consciousness cannot be
a strictly spatio-temporal process. Since I cannot imagine the
non-temporal, consciousness is, to me, paradoxical.)
The positive role of intellect, as I discussed in my last post, is that
of training in detachment. "Detached" means, in this context, free (or
as free as one can get) from what is traditionally called subjectivity,
or bias, cultural or otherwise. The more detached you are, the better
quality intellectual patterns you produce. Plato required his students
to spend ten years studying mathematics before entering the Academy. My
undergraduate degree was in mathematics, and I can vouch for its value
in that regard. (Or am I biased :) I have seldom used the math I learned
since, but certain habits of thought were gained that I would be loath
to be without. Mathematics cannot be biased, since it is not about
anything but itself.
Now on the other view, that intellect is a hindrance, I am dubious.
First, I suspect that it is the quality of the intellect that is the
problem, not the intellect itself. In particular, an intellect that is
not self-critical is one that will hinder. I also wonder (and could well
be quite wrong on this) whether the bent gurus you mentioned became bent
because they achieved Enlightenment without having first learned to be
careful and self-critical thinkers.
I don't agree that meditation is at all about taking a vacation from
thinking. I do see it as training in getting rid of what I call run-on
thinking (thinking on auto-pilot). Quality intellect, however, is
mindful. The hard thing is to keep one's thinking mindful, not to stop
it. Merrell-Wolff said that he was having thoughts right up to his
moment of awakening. The difference is that he had succeeded in making
his thoughts objective, that they would arise and go away as observed
phenomena, rather than as what "he" was doing (i.e., they were no longer
his ego thinking).
You say "I understand what you mean, though I do not see DQ as "out
there" at all."
That is Barfield's point, that we, in our current stage, NO LONGER see
DQ out there, but pre-intellectual people did (and presumably babies do,
but adults do not). And he emphasizes, like Wilber, that it is a mistake
to try to recover that ability. Rather, DQ has "moved inside" (Barfield
-- not that he used the phrase DQ), but to rediscover it is a different
matter altogether.
and you continue: "I think a lot of the argument about Bo's SOLAQI and
such like is prefaced on this oversimplification."
I lost you here. What is the oversimplification, and what does this have
to do with SOLAQI? (Irrelevant side note: the phraseology you objected
to was just spelling out SOLAQI. I'm ok with ditching Logic, and prefer
SOT. On Q-intellect vs intellect, I see a need to distinguish between
4th level intellect, vs the not-entirely-conscious intellect inherent in
social forms, or in the low-grade thinking of monkey-mind).
and you continue: "I am interested in your suggestion, if I understand
you correctly, that it is possible to learn to detach our ego from our
thought in order to experience the quality in our thinking. Can you
elaborate?"
Barfield and Georg Kuhlewind, who I've mentioned several times, were
both engaged in elaborating on the thought of Rudolf Steiner (known as
anthroposophy). Barfield does so by showing the historical evidence for
the claim that consciousness is evolving,and its philosophical
implications. Kuhlewind, on the other hand is engaged in elaborating on
the spiritual path that is implied in Steiner's book "The Philosophy of
Freedom". If you read the latter, you would not think it had anything to
do with mysticism (though the most recent edition has come out with the
title "Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path"). Kuhlewind vouches for
it through his own experience, and also gives explanations and
exercises. (See his "Stages of Consciousness"). In brief, he says that
what we call thinking is not "true" or "pure" thinking, but the dead
carcasses of this pure thinking (I think one could say that the pure
thinking is DQ thinking, that is the creation of the pattern, but all we
experience is the pattern, and not its creation.) So to experience the
live thinking, is to be in the here and now of thought. His exercises
amount to meditating on a thought, like the thought of a spoon (chosen
for its uninterestingness, to avoid egoistical interruptions), thinking
it over and over. Then going on to a mystical saying, something
incomprehensible to the ordinary mind.
- Scott
John Beasley wrote:
> Hullo Scott, Gary,
>
> Scott says "They were saying that the SOT mind is an illusory mind (maya).
> But to say it they had to be in a SOT framework, since that is what their
> audience is in."
>
> Yes, it gets complex, though. How do you talk to 'illusory minds'? Can you
> talk to anything else? Is there any value in this?
>
> Scott: "I take this as given, that Subject/Object Logic is Q-Intellect"
>
> I dislike this language. What does "Subject/Object Logic" mean that differs
> from just plain 'logic', and how does "Q-Intellect" differ from 'intellect'?
> Both intellect, and logic, as a tool of intellect, are developed in
> language, which is predicated on both polarities and objects. That I
> understand. (As you say later, "our intellect is unavoidably dualist".) What
> do the terms above add?
>
> Scott: "I ... insist on the high value of SOT: it is training in
> detachment."
>
> You have lost me here. I am unsure what you mean by 'detachment', but in my
> view thinking is a step away from here and now reality, and in my reading of
> mysticism this is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
>
> Now to your points. I have no problem with Point 1.
>
> Point 2 is more complex. The key point seems to be that thinking, at least
> in a subject/object form, creates paradoxes, which can alert us to the
> possible truth of the mystic claim that SOT is maya. I've always thought
> that in a way it was mystic perception of truth that created 'paradoxes',
> (which are part of the SOT framework). As my father used to say "If it ain't
> paradoxical it ain't true." By this he was pointing to a higher truth than
> the truth of logic.
>
> (I do intend to get Barfield's book, which hopefully will make your point
> clearer.)
>
> In Point 3 you say "while SOT and observable existence in general are maya,
> we make a mistake in thinking that SOT should just go away. Patterns are
> "static patterns of value" and the creation of patterns is Good. That
> includes patterns of q-intellect. We do have to learn that patterns of
> q-intellect, like all
> patterns, are not Ultimately Real"
>
> I take this to mean that while the creation of patterns is good, seeing any
> significance in them is not. I find this a bit hard to follow, especially
> given your next point...
>
> "we make a fundamental mistake in denigrating the intellect in favor of
> non-intellectual patterns , and that is why I dislike the phrase "the map is
> not the territory". It tends to reinforce the pre/trans fallacy, that if we
> could only stop thinking we would restore the experience of DQ "out there"
> as was the case in "original participation""
>
> This seems the same issue that has arisen between Hameed Ali and Ken Wilber.
> Ali argues that as infants we knew, in a primitive way, perhaps, our
> essential natures. Wilber argues that enlightenment is nothing like the
> experience of the infant, hence this becomes an example of the pre/trans
> fallacy. But Ali is not saying that to become 'enlightened' (I am using this
> word as a common shorthand) I simply revert to a childish state. What he is
> saying is that if we had not experienced our essential natures as children,
> we would have nothing to guide us towards enlightenment. One part of the
> 'process' is to regain contact with our essential states, which are present
> in adulthood, but scarcely noticed by most of us. In doing this we must also
> deal with the issues that arose in infancy that led to the formation of the
> egoic self. This is what Wilber points to in his book 'No Boundary', where
> he sets out beautifully how in our development as adults we created
> boundaries which had the effect of limiting us, and that part of the work of
> therapy and spiritual development is the undoing of those boundaries in the
> context of our adult strengths, which include our intellect.
>
> However, I am mindful that the intellect can become the greatest barrier to
> this process, and this is what I want to stress. It is put very simply by
> Aubrey Menen in his book 'The New Mystics' where he says mysticism "is a way
> of stopping you thinking. It has no appeal to people whose worry is that
> they never seem to have started; but more intelligent people do often feel
> that they need a holiday from their own minds, while leaving them intact to
> come home to when the holiday is over." (p 7) Susan Blackmore's
> understanding of meditation as weeding the memes, strikes a similar note.
> Perhaps this is to trivialize mysticism, or meditation, but it seems a
> common enough ingredient in the words of a great many mystics for me to see
> it as significant.
>
> When I work as a Gestalt therapist, I see intellectualizing as one of the
> symptoms of neurosis, and drawing attention to the bodily cues that often
> contradict the words is an important part of the work. Of course both
> Gestalt therapists and mystics use their intellects, and write books, and so
> on, but an important part of development seems to be to undo a restrictive
> form of intellect through using 'lower' levels of experience as levers.
>
> You see it as an error "that if we could only stop thinking we would restore
> the experience of DQ "out there" as was the case in "original
> participation". Rather we can learn to experience DQ in our thinking."
>
> I understand what you mean, though I do not see DQ as "out there" at all. I
> think a lot of the argument about Bo's SOLAQI and such like is prefaced on
> this oversimplification. I am interested in your suggestion, if I understand
> you correctly, that it is possible to learn to detach our ego from our
> thought in order to experience the quality in our thinking. Can you
> elaborate?
>
> Finally, you expand on the sentence I criticized as nonsense by adding
> ""dissolving all static patterns" does NOT mean that they just "go away", as
> mistaken notions of Nirvana sometimes suggest. Rather, they "go away" as
> objective reality, and along with it, "I" as subject also "go away". To the
> extent that static patterns are experienced as objects, they are NOT
> experienced as Quality."
>
> I suspect it is the 'active' voice of the original statement that concerned
> me. So the issue remains how 'someone' who sees static patterns as objects,
> and themselves as a subject, gets to change from this perspective. Again, I
> would be interested if you can elaborate.
>
> Regards,
>
> John B
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> 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 Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:29 BST