Hello to ALL, my name is Malbin,
Another new member here. I subscribe to the philosophical model of what
you might call Wilber-Pirsig-Zen Buddhism. I think D. Buchanan is right on
the money.
I read a lot of interesting stuff about DQ, mysticism, Zen, brain, mind,
life, consciousness, etc, on this site. But one thing is strangely silent.
It could be because Pirsig has not made much about, but he definitely did
it. And this thing is PRACTICE. SPIRITUAL TRAINING. Without this, without
practice, all this talk, philosophizing, is a big waste of time. Its just
more attachment, namely to static intellectual patterns. Pirsigs practice
was the koan: 'What's Quality?" For years he practiced with this koan, until
that night, after sitting in his bedroom for 3 days, after detaching himself
even from the consciousness of himself (mind and body dropped), Quality
revealed itself to him. That's what its all about. Everything else, every
static pattern, is in an evolutionary, developmental drive towards that end,
that goal: Enlightenment.
So yes, let us discuss, clarify, engage ourselves in intellectual
matters, that helps see them for what they are, models, static models of
reality, not reality itself, not Dynamic Quality. So don't forget about
practice, whether it be meditation, or contemplation, or yoga, because it
accelerates the evolutionary currents, it galvanizes you to the luminosity
of the Dynamic Ground and Goal, to the Spirit-Itself, to Radical Emptiness,
to God, to Dynamic Quality Itself.
David Buchanan wrote:
> 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
-- Malbin Mendoza Mechanical Design EngineerPH: 217/438-2256 FAX: 217/438-6157
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