From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Sun Dec 26 2004 - 23:45:09 GMT
Chin replied:
I think you bring up a good point here. If you are to overthrow the
Victorian Principles, the S/O Metaphysics says there is no morals, the MOQ
says that the morals are in the society/biological and intellect/society
morality. If there are no morals in the intellect, then there is no control
over the biological patterns. If there is no religion, then the lawyers are
in charge of maintaining the biological patterns; no morals there. :o)
dmb replies:
I don't think anybody was talking about social level morals. It seems to me
that you have raised an entirely different topic. (The actual topic here is
mysticism.)
Hi dmb,
I cannot disagree with anything you have said. It is true that I have been
looking at more the bigger picture as opposed to mysticism only. As Sam has
pointed out, he hasn't said a lot about God, but I interpreted what he was
saying as, not religious mysticism, but as religious views.
I simply do not see mysticism limited by religion or philosophy, as
mysticism denies any religious or philosophical guidelines, and most
certainly is not limited to any cultural/religious traditions.
The only limitations I see, as I have offered previously, to a mystic
experience, is that of culture/religion denial.
A degenerate is just as capable of a mystic experience as a theologian or
philosopher, and possibly more so.(IMHO)
Chin
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?
> marsha, Chin, Sam, msh and all:
>
> Marsha asked:
> Who would be there to pick up the pieces?
>
> Chin replied:
> I think you bring up a good point here. If you are to overthrow the
> Victorian Principles, the S/O Metaphysics says there is no morals, the MOQ
> says that the morals are in the society/biological and intellect/society
> morality. If there are no morals in the intellect, then there is no
control
> over the biological patterns. If there is no religion, then the lawyers
are
> in charge of maintaining the biological patterns; no morals there. :o)
>
> dmb replies:
> I don't think anybody was talking about social level morals. It seems to
me
> that you have raised an entirely different topic. (The actual topic here
is
> mysticism.) If I understand what Marsha is getting at, her question asks
> what goes in the cup once it has been emptied. She's asking if there is a
> better view on the table to replace the one under attack, or is the attack
> just destructive. And if that's the question, then the answer is
> philosophical mysticism. That's what goes back into the cup instead. In
> fact, the whole point of getting rid of the old tea, of pounding on her
til
> she let's go, to mix metaphors like a small town reporter, is to make room
> for something better, broader and more inclusive. Philosophical mysticism
> doesn't reject traditional christianity so much as put it in a larger
> context. I understand that some view that as somehow lowering the status
of
> christianity, but this is true only if you thought christianity was
special
> and superior to all of the other religions. I think this broader context
and
> the philosophical approach only deepens and enriches the meaning of
> christianity. In short, I think its better. And apparently, so do Pirsig
and
> many others.
>
> Chin said:
> What dmb has been trying to get across is that it is immoral for any part
of
> society to demand that all peoples adhere to a religious view that is
> exclusive. ...
>
> dmb says:
> I'd agree with that, but its not what I've been trying to get across.
Again
> the topic is mysticism, so when I refer to tradition, its points to the
> mainstream interpretations of mysticism within the church, most especially
> the Holy Roman church, which has been more Roman than Holy. It might be
true
> that there is a long and bloody history of enforcing certain beliefs and
> dogmas, but that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about
the
> tendency of static interpretations to obscure the very thing they are
meant
> to portray; DQ. It seems to me that in the case of traditional
Christianity
> in particular, and the Western religions in general, the static
> interpretations not only function poorly to portray DQ, they have even
come
> to deny that it should do so at all. SOM is equally hostile to the notion,
> but for different reasons. Both are based on dualistic metaphysical
> assumptions that have to be abandoned, at least temporarily, before
> philosophical mysticism can be properly understood, because it is NOT
based
> on those dualistic metaphysical assumptions, see? Consequently, we have a
> major league cultural blindspot when it comes to this kind of monistic
> mysticism. It asserts THE ONE, while traditional theology and SOM assert
> dualities. To the extent that traditional interpretations protect or
> perpetuate this blindspot, they are here under attack. See?
>
> mhs had said in the "101" thread:
> For DMB, a mystical experience reveals that god exists, and we,
everything,
> every rock root and sentient, are pure god, through and through. We, each
> and everyone of us, are complete and equal in our godliness.
>
> Chin replied:
> Msh may have taken it to an extreme where he said we are all "complete and
> equal in our godliness," but what dmb seems to be saying is that God is in
> the here and now. God 'does' exist in everything and everyone. This is DQ;
> it can include intellectual and religious views.
>
> dmb says:
> Its hard to be very brief about these things, but basically I'm saying
that
> God is a metaphor for the ultimate mystery, for the void, nothingness, DQ,
> whatever one wishes to call it. Monistic or non-dualistic mysticism
asserts
> that God is not some separate entity that has concerns for us or judges
us,
> but is actually our most intimate and ultimate identity. There is no
"other"
> where all is One. This assertion is not intended to erase or destroy all
the
> distinctions we make in the world of things. It only points out that
things
> and distinctions are illusory to the extent that we take them as
ultimately
> real. And then we even have to remember that the static/Dynamic
distinction
> is no exception and that ultimately there is only One, there is only
> Quality. And you're looking at it, man. Thou art that.
>
> Chin continued:
> The traditions Sam speaks of are not created by God, but interpreted by
man.
> The different religions of the world were not created by God, but
> interpretations of man. (I know, we should have let woman do this:)
>
> dmb replies:
> I don't think God created religion OR that they are just inventions of
man.
> As I understand it, all these ideas and beliefs have created us. There are
> layers and layers within us that is not unlike they layers we see in an
> archeological dig. Gods and myths come out of the lower, unconscious
levels
> that we are barely aware of. And so I think that the evolution of cultural
> patterns occured alot like biological evolution, which is to say it was
not
> consciously directed anymore than our primate ancestors "decided" to grow
a
> bigger brain. But that is all from a static intellectual point of view and
> so shouldn't be taken quite literally either.
>
> Chin continued:
> "You don't convert mullah to Christianity by telling them their religion
is
> wrong." You convert them by showing them a higher Quality. You don't
convert
> Christians to an MOQ view by telling them their religion is wrong, but by
> showing them a higher Quality; IMHO one that can be accepted by their
> religion. I think dmb has been patiently trying to point to the high
Quality
> view, and one that will work within the Christian framework.
>
> dmb replies:
> Yes. That is my intention, to offer better tea.
>
> Chin said:
> In the Christian view, "God gave you a brain," it should not be
blasphemous
> to use it.
>
> dmb says:
> In my view, it is blasphemous NOT to use one's intellect. Well, it may not
> quite qualify as blasphemy, but surely it is stupid - by definition.
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 27 2004 - 00:55:02 GMT