Hi gents/ladies:
At the risk of being unnecessarily repetitive, but intentionally
supportive in the name of progress, I'd like to register my agreement
(or 'sense' of high quality) of David's last post.
He quoted:
>Page 109 "American Indian mysticism is the same platypus in a world
>divided primarily into classic and romantic patterns as under a
>subject-object divison... Since this whole metaphysics had started
with
>an attempt to explain Indian mysticism Phaedrus finally abandoned
this
>classic-romatic split as a choice for a primary divison to the
>metaphysics of Quality" (static & Dynamic instead)
Yes. Exactly. We must be clear on Pirsig's views before we seek to
extend or challenge them. The way I garnered it, his very basic point
is that a mystic abandons all static patterns in favour of Dynamic
Quality itself.
What I question is that very process of 'breaking free', 'achieving
Union'... If, as he says elsewhere, that spov's can't adjust to DQ all
by themselves, "only a living being can do that"...How is it that this
spatiotemporal cohesion of spov's (lao-tzu, eckhart, d'avila, sufi...)
'abandons' staticity, or moves/turns towards Dynamic understanding /
Unity with the GodHEAD (DQ). What aspect of reality 'wills' to walk
the way of a mystic?
In partial answer to my own question, we must always keep in mind,
that according to the MOQ,
it is BETTER to say: "B values precondition A",
rather than: "A causes B"
So... with the correct collection of ino, bio, soc and inte values,
Dynamic Quality is "LIKEly" to express itself in the form of
mysticism.
Does this sound right?
David also wrote:
>Kevin; I disagree with mysticism as a seperate level of static
patterns
>because the mystical vision is Dynamic, which is unpatterned by
>definition. But more importantly, your efforts are misplaced because
>mysticism is not a platypus in the MOQ, mysticism is at the very
center
>and heart of the MOQ already. You need not find a special place for
it.
>Pirsig has already done that.
Hmmm. Mysticism (and insanity, nonetheless - closely related) are
definitely the center of concern in Lila. The strongest argument I
currently see for a new higher level, is that mysticism is NOT the
morality of 'substance', 'organisms', 'societies', or 'reason'.
Mystics, I have always believed, but need to further research (compare
and contrast) and consider, all have the same values and experiences.
Pirsig's Dynamic Quality is absolutely perfect as a unitive term here,
as it is quite difficult to 'prove' mystic experiences from different
religions are the same, due to cultural differences (language), and
the "beyond-reason-ness" quality of mysticism.
David went on:
>Struan:
On another issue, you said "mysticism would rank as the lowest form of
>intellect". I disagree with this.
Me too. That really is far off, I think. The 'Church of Reason' was
Phaedrus' first enemy, and deepest concern. There was something very
stinky about the nature of reason itself, and he set out to find this
Ghost - when he did, he "thrashed it good".
Mysticism is unequivocally a BETTER (more Dynamic) WAY (of life,
knowledge, social relation, etc...) - WAY of being
"Dynamically static".
My final thought concerning our discussion:
(this made me chuckle at first few readings)
(Negroe travelling friends:)
"Quality..."Man, will you please, kindly, dig it,"..."and hold up on
all those wonderful seven-dollar questions? If you got to ask what is
it all the time, you'll never get time to know." Soul. Quality. The
same?" - ZMM Bantam pg.195
Soul. Any thoughts?
rich
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:56 BST