Howdy all:
As the battle rages concerning what mysticism is along with its general
validity, I find myself overwhelmed with the feeling that can only be
described as: "so what?" I may be extremely thick-headed, but I don't
understand what all the fuss is about.
I think it would be a very difficult task indeed to find a group of
people (even the proverbial hard-nose scientist) who did not beleive
that there was a realm of existence that is beyond and independent of
the ability of "thought" to conceive, explain, or visualize it. The
simple fact that so many people believe in a some form of God/Higher
being testifies to this. And let's not get bogged down with particulars
and the splitting of hairs -- mysticsm is a lot like the Quality
described in ZAMM in that we all no what it is, we just get caught when
we try to specifically tie it down with a definition.
And yet, mysticism isn't the whole thing. Anyone who affirms this
either wasn't paying attention to Pirsig's basic split of Quality in
LILA or finds it invalid. Fully half of reality is DQ -- the mystical
side of reality, the realm of inspiration, change, etc. The other half,
and no less important is SQ -- the side of physical reality, stability,
etc. Obviously, both are needed. They are two halves of the same
reality-coin.
Having said that, I will cautiously contend that to approach this forum
on a purely mystical basis has potentially less value than to do so in a
rational, logical manner. This has to do with the "sharability" of a
mystical contention. It being something so personal and germane to the
individual, I feel that attempts to express it without adhering to the
confines of logic and language would be to give nothing to the squad as
a whole. Indeed, a tue mystic would say that such an event is doomed to
failure, because as soon as you use the static latch of language
whatever you're attempting to describe has been perverted.
So could we maybe go back to discussing this month's PROGRAM which IMHO
is the msot important one that has come about since I've been a member
of the squad? A mystic aspect of reality exists, who's really argue
against that without saying that the concept of Quality is not valid?
But who else would really contend that rational thought and logical
expression are of no value within a discussion group that exists within
language? What are you guys really arguing about? And why?
Kilian
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