welcome to the mystic camp, david. i can see you are a valued ally already.
lithien
http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/Lila2.html
-----Original Message-----
From: David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: 'moq_discuss@moq.org' <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 5:32 AM
Subject: MD mysticism
>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
>
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