Calling all Pirsigers:
Forgive me for not addressing you by name, but I'm new and haven't yet
sorted out your "voices". The conversations about the Zomie articles are
lost on me and the discussion of the number of levels seems a terrible
mess. Most fascinating to me is the debate on mysticism. Clearly there
are two distict camps on the issue.
As I said in my other post, I think the MOQ and mysticism agree so
profoundly that one essential describes the other. In fact I'm a little
surprized there are two camps. Would love to split hairs with the
moq/mystics when the civil war is over. For now the challege appears to
be in convincing the other camp. I'll call them the rationalists. I
think its reasonable, accurate and fair.
Seems the rationalists intentionaly persist in maintaining the
misconception that mysticism is unscientific, anti-scientific and
irrational. Meanwhile the mystics repeat their denials without much
explaination. And to be fair, it is extremely though to articulate. Its
part of the meaning of the word. I'm worried about my attempt to
convince you rationalist with mere words, especially in front of the
other mystics.
Let me start by pointing out that both camps really agree about science.
I might be more critical and see greater limitations than the
rationalists, but we both find alot of value in it. I assume there are
no creationists or flat-earthers here at moq_discuss. I'm guessing
everyone here is free of superstition, mental illness, furbey fever, and
other forms of irrationality.
Sir Issac Newton was a mystic in his latter years. Einstien viewed
physics as a way to understand the mind of God. John Travolta is a
scientologist. You decide.
And maybe the reason for their persistence is based on the false belief
that there are two choices; rational and irrational. If there were only
two I'd be in the rationalist camp. BUT mysticism isn't irrational.
MYSTICISM IS POST-RATIONAL.
One arrives at mysticism in a flash of insight, they say, but the secret
is that it usually happens only after years of training. The flash of
insight isn't some gift from the heaven in answer to all those prayers,
its more like the flowering of a cultivatred mind. Its as if all the
experiences finally click together into one simple thing. All the
gazillion pieces of the puzzle come together and you realize you always
knew, but now theres a new appreciation.
Mystical visions can happen other ways too, trauma and lsd for example,
but those experiences are often wasted on the unprepared. Again, those
experiences and the insights they produce are nearly impossible to
translate. Its part of the reason so many mystics were poets, artists,
and scientists - they need a medium of expression and discovery that is
better than words. Their insights are recorded in lots of ways, in every
culture. But its disguised in a way. But once you notice, its
everywhere. Check out the poet William Blake or the lyrics of Van
Morrison and U2.
Did you read Pirsig's speech "Subjects,, Ojects, Data and Values"?
There you have the author of MOQ discussing the most crucial scientific
issues of our day and as a mystic I was thrilled. The descriptions of
reality the mystics gave us in poetic forms are being verified in the
hard sciences. It's only in this century, when physics got good enough
to study sub-atomic particles and the very edges of the universe, that
the mystical insights about the nature of reality could be verified. The
mystics also had insights into "psychology" long before Freud was born.
And what long-held mystical view of reality is being verified by
science? I think Emerson said it best, "Nature is Mind, precipitated".
In other words, "Reality is composed of consciouness manifesting itself
in the forms we see". Or Pirsig might say, "The universe is made up of
different kinds and levels of Quality".
Remember rationalists - both camps value science and neither is
irrational, but we mystics are post rational. You can bang on the table
all you want, but the mytics and the physicists know its apparent
solidity is only an illusion.
Nature is mind. The universe is consciousness. That's the heart of the
mystical view of reality. Awareness of some kind exists all the way down
to the sub-atomic level and have certain very limited "choices" about
what they're gonna do. Be a particle or a wave in the case of a photon?
Decay or not in the case of a uranium atom. Bond with that other complex
molecule? Absorb the nutrients from that other cell? Move toward the
light? Eat that steak? As the forms evolve toward greater complexity the
have more freedom and more awareness. Finally a point is reached where
consicouness has grown acute enough to know that the very ground of
being is consciouness. The individual consciousness identifies with the
universal consciouness and percieves that there is no seperation from
it. There is really only one thing; consciousness. Being at one with the
universe, they say with an Indian accent. Or in Christian terms,
at-one-ment or "I and the father are one". The mystical philosophers
talk about in different terms, but its the same view.
Dear rationlists, it would be unscientific madness for you to dismiss
the ancient and vast body of evidence in favor of myticism!
David B.
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 - 16:02:44 BST