Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: Sam Norton (
Date: Mon Dec 27 2004 - 11:47:19 GMT

  • Next message: MarshaV: "Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?"

    Hey MSH,

    Even if DMB has sacked you, I haven't. I wanted DMB to recapitulate in simple terms what he thinks
    'non-traditional mysticism' is - because he's recently brought in a lot of different vocabulary to
    our discussions (jnani/bhakti; devotional/non-devotional etc). If he's arguing that non-devotional
    mysticism is in fact philosophical mysticism, great, that gets us somewhere, but is he? Is he
    prepared to stick to that argument, or is he going to avoid it? (Because it's going to be quite
    straightforward to show that philosophical mysticism has its own forms of devotion). So the specific
    question for you is: am I wrong to ask for a short and straightforward account of what he means
    (like 20 words or less)? I just think DMB spins a bit of a web with all his rhetoric, and you get
    caught up in it because he's so fluent, and you end up losing sight of what you're arguing about.
    Specifically, he's always accusing me of being slippery, but it seems to me that DMB is highly
    resistant to having his understanding pinned down (believe me, I've tried to pin his understanding
    down for about three years now, and it keeps moving). Perhaps he's taking refuge in the ineffability
    of his own experience, but I don't think that's legitimate, because if that's all there is to it,
    why doesn't he just say 'this is what I have found to be of Quality, and that's all there is to it'?

    So I want to keep you on as a ref, simply because otherwise DMB will be able to slip away from being
    pinned down to a position, and be able to hide behind his rhetoric and claim that *I'm* the one not
    being straight in this discussion.

    By the way, have you read Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land'?


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "David Buchanan" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 11:17 PM
    Subject: RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

    > Sam Norton said to dmb:
    > Are you able to explain, to such a dunder-head as I, in words of few
    > syllables, and preferably less
    > than about 20 of them, what you understand to be 'non-traditional
    > mysticism'. I find that I
    > sometimes drown in your torrent of words, only some of which pertain to the
    > point at issue.
    > dmb says:
    > In less than 20 words of few syllables? Yesterday I was condescending and
    > today I'm over your head?
    > And if you have questions about what I'm saying, for God's sake, why don't
    > you simply ask me?
    > How about if I just point to an example of non-traditional mysticism and you
    > can explore it at your at your own pace? And I don't just mean to give you a
    > homework assignment or otherwise throw the question back in your lap. In
    > fact, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you as you go along. You'll
    > find a very accessable and down to earth description in a book called LILA.
    > It was written by Robert Pirsig and was published in the early 1990's. Ever
    > heard of it?
    > Sorry, but its hard not to be sarcastic here. I mean, what the heck do you
    > think I've been talking about? Pirsig's philosophical mysticism is
    > non-traditional mysticism.
    > If you think ONLY SOME of the comments or ideas presented in my "torrent of
    > words" pertain to the topic, then you are not getting me. Sometimes I might
    > give more detail than is necessary, but I'm sticking to the topic pretty
    > well. Please trust me there. If it seems like something is unconnected or
    > irrelevant, you'd be doing us both a favor to say so, to raise it as an
    > issue. Don't just gloss over stuff because it seems like an irrevelancy. I'm
    > not that much of a hack. Either I have failed to make the connection clear
    > or you are misreading things. Either way, there will be no clearing it up
    > unless you get specific and point our such things. I mean, its not entirely
    > fair or honest to pretend to have a conversation with someone if you're not
    > really understanding them, or even listening to them, is it? And its almost
    > a certainty that confusion would result.
    > MOQ.ORG -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 27 2004 - 12:30:34 GMT