>From owner-moq_discuss@mill.venus.co.uk Mon Dec 14 00:18:05 1998
>Received: from [193.243.229.112] by hotmail.com (1.0) with SMTP id
MHotMail309107628140735065324963253986672334610; Mon Dec 14 00:18:05
1998
>Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> by mill.venus.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id IAA05418
> for moq_discuss-outgoing; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:15:53 GMT
>Received: from leo.pcisys.net (mailmx.pcisys.net [207.76.102.243])
> by mill.venus.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA05414
> for <moq_discuss@moq.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:15:50 GMT
>Received: from colorado.cpr.org (cpr4.pcisys.net [208.198.213.85])
> by leo.pcisys.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) via ESMTP id BAA13797
> for <moq_discuss@moq.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 01:15:58 -0700 (MST)
> env-from (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
>Received: by COLORADO with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
> id <Y6JHVXQP>; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 01:14:39 -0700
>Message-ID: <4D1173049E87D111A26A0060089BB15D1CC736@COLORADO>
>From: David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
>To: "'moq_discuss@moq.org'" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: MD quality and mind
>Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 01:14:37 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>
>To my favorite motorcycle gang:
Dear David,
>
>This is my first posting. I read the Dec 12 and 13 entries and am
>astonished and amazed. The conversation is better than I hoped for,
>although surprized at the scatology and brutality. I'm very psyched to
>chime in.
>
>Please count me among the mystics. Even further, I see the MOQ as a
good
>picture of mysticism. MOQ is a good explaination of the underlying or
>transcendent reality that mystics describe. Further still, I think
>philosophical mysticism isn't the only valid kind. Each of the world's
>great religious traditions have an esoteric core of thinkers who are
>mystics, and at that esoteric core all the great religions agree. The
>mystics see the apparent differences between theologies as merely a
>matter of style. Its the same person in different clothes, so to speak.
>The differences are only cultural inflections.
>
>I'd love to go on, but the topic is brain, mind, and intellect, isn't
>it?
>
>The neurosciences are inherently reductionist. I can't believe that
even
>a perfectly valid scientific experiment on the brain could ever make
>claims about the nature of human consciousness. Chemistry could never
>explain shakephere or the blues. Besides the brain/mind split is
classic
>SO thinking. Its the old mind/body problem.It becomes an impossible
>situation when the subject is also and object. I think it's at the
heart
>of what Pirsig was trying to overcome in his quest for Quality. His
>copernican revolution in consciousness was meant to overthrow this
exact
>problem.
>
>In the real world history has shown repeatedly that biological
>explainations for human nature and behavior have been used by
>authoritarian governments to justify exploitation, slavery, war and
>genocide. Reductionism is a right-wing thing and it gets alot of people
>killed. In Pirsig's MOQ it would be a matter of confusing the various
>levels of Quality; that it confuses the biological, social, and
>intellectual levels.
>
>Joseph Campbell's last book, "The Inner Reaches of Outer Space", sheds
>light on the issue and i think its consistent with the MOQ. He was a
>scholar, a post-Jungian mythologist and a mystic. He make a case for
>Freud's view that the sex organs exerted a certain pressure on the
mind,
>and that resulted in unconscious motivations. But Campbell goes much
>further. He says that all the organs exert their own kind of pressure
on
>the total organism. Each organ has its own needs and issues demands on
>the mind. And here's the fun part. THE BRAIN IS AN ORGAN. Its just one
>of many organs in competition to effect the will of the whole organism.
>
>The brain is the king of organs and my personal favorite. It seems to
>run things, and that is a big part of the confusion. Again - the
>biological level is confused with the intellectual level when brains
are
>confused with minds. The mind and the intellect are dependant on the
>brain, and have grown out of the organ to reach a new level of Quality.
>Within every brain are areas more primitive and wild. Remnants of
former
>brains lie beneath as building blocks of our present state. One could
>even say there are levels of quality within the organ itself and levels
>of quality in the mind that grows out of it. Who wanted to talk about
>complexity?
Nature seems to be inclined to produce our kind of
>consciousness. DQ is the underlying evolutionary force and it created
>our brains and minds.
Yes, David! This is what Cosmotheism is all about!
The MOQ is very flattering to human consciousness.
>
>One more idea. This one is from Robert Thurman. He's a Tibetan Buddhist
>scholar and Uma's dad. He studied with the Dali Lama... Blah Blah Blah
>In "Inner Revolution" he says if you want to understand consciousness
>you gotta go East.
>He says Western science has mastered material reality and was able to
>put a man on the moon, but that the East has achieved an equally
>stunning feat in the inner realm.
Not quite! But the focus on the inner realm, is lacking in the West!
>
>That's it for now.
And for me too!
Paul.
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
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 - 16:02:46 BST