From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Jan 10 2005 - 17:56:59 GMT
Platt ...
Ad hominem attacks ???
This mail today ""As ususal DMB has ... all wrong"
Other mail today "The way DMB describes .... etc"
Pot & kettle perhaps ... ?
Truce - however, since you're clearly in playful mood ...
Perhaps I could glean a clue or two about inuition and mysticism.
I still genuinely feel mysticism is just a pejorative label for something
fairly straightforward.
I'm happy with the idea of "pre-cognitive" knowledge ("affective" no ?)
Something believed, felt, "known" ahead of conceptualising any rational or
empirical perceptual inputs.
Is this stuff "not yet rationally explained" and/or "not yet experienced
through the 5 external senses" all people mean by mysticism ?
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101
> Hi Chin, DMB, All:
>
> > Phaedrus Wolff asked:
> > If intuition is not DQ, then what is it?
> >
> > dmb replies:
> > Instinct. A hunch. A feeling. Its a vague word and should be avoided by
> > philosophers for that reason, especially if we are trying to distinguish
> > instincts and feelings from a mystical experience.
> >
> > Wolff) That'll do as well as Chin, thanks for the new nickname. I guess
it
> > is possible we could reduce ourselves to nonintellectual animals. Point
> > well taken.
>
> Point well made, Chin. It looks more and more like mystic experience is
> like animal experience, i.e., without concepts. But, as usual, DMB has the
> meaning of "intuition" all wrong. From Merriam-Webster:
>
> 1 : quick and ready insight
> 2 a : immediate apprehension or cognition b : knowledge or conviction
> gained by intuition c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct
> knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference
>
> Intuition is knowledge, cognition without thought, or as I've said, what
> we know before we know anything else.
>
> Furthermore, does it strike anyone else as ironic to say the least that it
> seems to the require an outpouring of verbiage to describe something that
> it's claimed can't be verbalized, or that those who rail against reason
> and logic in favor of a mystic view of reality structure their arguments
> solely on reason and logic?
>
> Oh well. The ongoing debate about the nature of mysticism provides much
> entertainment. As Pirsig notes, "pure fun" and Dynamic Quality go
> together.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Jan 10 2005 - 18:25:22 GMT