mary says:
I'm opposed to defining Dynamic Quality as God because I think DQ is much
more than mysticism.
dear mary:
in p. 72, Pirsig states:
"The second group of opponents are the mystics. The term mystic is sometimes confused with "occult" or "supernatural" and with magic and witchcraft but in philosophy it has a different meaning. Some of the most honored philosophers in history have been mystics: Plotinus, Swedenborg, Loyola, Shankaracharya and many others. They share a common belief that the fundamental nature of reality is outside of language; that language splits things up into parts while the true nature of reality is undivided."
this is the definition of mystics that i am going by not anything associated with spiritualism.
furthermore, Pirsig adds:
"Zen...argues that the illusion of dividedness, can be overcome by meditation."
this is what i would like to point out. that S/O thinking can be temporarily stopped by zazen. not for too long. but it can be done in this way as per the article on Zen mind that i sent to the squad. did you read it?
Pirsig continues:
"Of the two kinds of hostility to metaphysics he considered the mystics' hostility the more formidable. Mystics tell you that once you've opened the door to metaphysics you can say goodbye to any genuine understanding of reality. Thought is not a path to reality. It sets obstacles in that path because when you try to use thought to approach something that is prior to thought your thinking does not carry you toward that something. it carries you away from it. to define something is to subordinate it to a tangle of intellectual relationships. And when you do that you destroy real understanding."
now, mary, this is exactly the findings in the zombie articles. that is why diana sent it along. so if you truly want to explore this other side, then we can discuss them. for instance, the article "I had a hunch..." explores :
"the underlying notion that the brain has two distinct modes of thinking: one verbal, logical and conscious, the other nonverbal, and unconscious".
according to this new research, non-verbal thinking or nonconscious thinking "is rooted in mechanisms that enable the brain to soak up and ruminate on information looking for subtle patterns and connections, behind your back--without the aid of words, and in many cases without your being conscious of what's going on".
additionally, it states that "verbalization...impairs judgment bases on intuition", which to me explains why it is so hard for people like me to be understood by people like you and the others in the squad which operate on logic.
notice too, that it goes hand in hand with Pirsig's accurate definition on mystics and their metaphysical beliefs.
now, although i tend that way myself, i am nevertheless attracted by the other side as well. so i was just wanting to discuss how these ideas would play out with Dynamic Quality and the MOQ.
what are your thoughts?
Lithien
ps. have you read anything on Zen?
http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/Lila2.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary <mwittler@geocities.com>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Saturday, December 12, 1998 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: MD Brain, Mind and Intellect
>
>Hi Lithien and Squad,
>
>Lithien said:
>
>>mary:
>>you seem to spend a lot of time being confused. maybe if you finished
>>reading the book or the articles and then came back with some dialectical
>>questions (not the ones you pretend to have ) but some specific ones from
>>the articles or the book, then your confusion would disappear.
>
>
>Lithien, I'm not sure what you meant by questions I pretend to have. My
>questions were not meant to be facetious (is that what you meant?). I asked
>them because there are at least 2 divergent camps on the Squad, one
>subscribing to mysticism and another arguing everything logically. Neither
>side is of more or less value than the other, but neither side seems to be
>able to understand the other's points either. I just think before we
>proceed further into the argument we should define our terms. How can we
>have a calm and reasonable debate without an understanding of what we are
>debating about? BTW, I have read the article and am almost finished reading
>the book. It's slow going though, because Pirsig gives us so much to think
>about.
>
>Lithien said:
>>i do not pose questions in order to correct anyone. when i introduce a
>>subject, i truly want to discuss it.
>>diana sent the zombie articles because she saw the controversiality in
>them.
>>i find them fascinating and irresistible and wonder how we can equate them
>>with Pirsig's MOQ. that is all i wanted to discuss.
>
>Lithien, my request for corrections was directed at the Squad as a whole. I
>guess that wasn't apparent, though. That's the trouble with email!
>
>You've raised a number of challenges for me in your recent posts. I'm
>working hard to overcome my prejudices about mysticism. That's why I want
>so much for others to tell me how they would define it. Currently, I value
>logic very highly and hold mysticism suspect. Perhaps if I reveal my
>underlying thoughts against it you and others will be able to straighten me
>out.
>
>Mysticism is grounded in nothing more than hopes and fears. To me, it's
>just so much wishful thinking. Its a stage in human development that logic
>has superseded. We used to have all sorts of gods and goddesses we
>beseeched to help us overcome our problems. We used to all pray for rain,
>good crops, the curing of disease. Now we have science to tell us when it's
>probably going to rain, agricultural engineering to improve our crops, and
>medicine to cure disease. We no longer need mysticism to get through the
>day.
>
>At the time mysticism was developed it was a great help to us because we
>didn't understand anything about why thunderstorms occurred, why the stars
>seemed to move in predictable patterns across the sky, or why there were
>things like eclipses. With no understanding and no logical scientific way
>to figure out what was going on, we invented mystical explanations for
>almost everything. We invented imaginary personages more powerful than
>ourselves because we felt so powerless. I'm not saying we were stupid, just
>that we didn't have any tools to work with to help us overcome our
>powerlessness.
>
>Then came a new way of thinking. Logic. Logic was the next ratcheting up
>on the intellectual static scale. We now acquired a tool, and the more we
>used it the less powerless we became. But as with all ratchets, the old one
>(mysticism) was still there. Mysticism was a lower level static value that
>suddenly found itself in opposition to - being attacked by - logic.
>Mysticism as a static value with the rights of existence accorded to every
>other static value tries to defend itself against logic to this very day.
>But logic is a higher static value and resists.
>
>I'm opposed to defining Dynamic Quality as God because I think DQ is much
>more than mysticism.
>
>Peas,
>Mary
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:43 BST