RE: MD Further comments to Matt

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jan 23 2005 - 19:30:39 GMT

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "MD Understanding Quality in Society"

    Wolff and all MOQers:

    "Phædrus remembered a line from Thoreau: "You never gain something but that
    you lose something." And now he began to see for the first time the
    unbelievable magnitude of what man, when he gained power to understand and
    rule the world in terms of dialectic truths, had lost. He had built empires
    of scientific capability to manipulate the phenomena of nature into enormous

    manifestations of his own dreams of power and wealth...but for this he had
    exchanged an empire of understanding of equal magnitude: an understanding of

    what it is to be a part of the world, and not an enemy of it."

    Ron ChinWester said:
    The Good is built into man's nature. From prehistoric times, from before
    your theory of when philosophy began, the Good has always been there. It is
    intuitive, and yes, it is instinct. It is not an anamalistic instinct that
    is pointed toward survival, but a human instinct; one that puts the well
    being of others before the well being of self. It is the instinct built into

    man that will throw a man in front of a fast moving car to save the life of
    a child, or a puppy. It is the instinct that will send a man up a flight of
    stairs in a burning building to save another human being he has not met. It
    is the instinct of man that will place him in front of a rain forest defying

    a line of bull dozers that are determined to tear it down, or of a biker who

    will lay out a good Christian man for striking his own child for something
    this good Christian man sees as embarrasing, and the child must be put in
    line.

    dmb says:
    The noble sentiments here are almost enough to convince, but then you end by
    saying, in effect, that The Good is a vigilante who kicks hick ass. Surely
    that's not what Plato was saying. Don't get me wrong, I do think there are
    times when "no-mind" is revealed. Campbell talks about this. The mother
    doesn't think about death or injury or even what "she" is capable of, she
    just lifts that car and grabs the baby. When someone spontaneously leaps to
    the aid of a stranger or otherwise forgets one's self. And its not just the
    superhuman strength or the willingness to sacrifice one's self, but the
    reports of those who go through the experience. They didn't have time to
    think, they'll tell you. No time to be afraid. Didn't occur to me that it
    was impossible. Anybody would have done the same thing, they all say. And it
    happened to me once. A friend caught on fire when I was just a boy, we must
    have been 10 or 11 years old, and I can tell you that courage and morality
    and I had nothing to do with it. It just happened. It was like I watched my
    hands put him out. And I suppose its possible that a hick child abuser could
    get his butt kicked spontaneously, but I think we have to be careful not to
    confuse this kind of thing with mere animal outrage. Imagine if everyone
    thought they could act on impulse and pass out justice accordingly.

    Win Chinmeister continued:
    The intuition of man is pointed toward the Good of man, of animal, of earth.

    This is why Pirsig so identifies with the Native American. It is the respect

    of the Good dog, of the Good turkey that the Native American feels the need
    to give thanks to; not the Creator, but the turkey, and the earth, and the
    Creator.

    dmg replies:
    Pirsig also warns us about the myth of the noble savage, warns that the
    romanintic ideal of a natural man has been a disaster. Campbell and Wilber
    ring that same alarm. Don't get me wrong. Nature is taking a real trashing
    and our culture certainly could stand to improve its attitudes toward the
    earth and all living things, but I think you're talking about static good,
    static quality here.

    Ren Winchinster continued:
    As opposed to saying "no-mind," maybe we could say 'New-mind'; one that has
    not been corrupted by culture, science, and philosophy. Or else, we can say
    this Quality is out there. It is not in the mind. Man does not know it, he
    has to reach 'Out there' through meditation. I would prefer to think that he

    reaches in there; in there to a Quality that resides in man. This same
    Quality resides in everything on earth, and in the universe.

    dmb replies:
    See what I mean. Nature is great, but culture, science and philosophy
    corrupt us? That formulation pretty much defines anti-intellectualism and is
    one of the chief dangers of this kind of romantic degeneracy. Fascists and
    Hippies have both fallen for that one. With respect to Quality being "out
    there" or "in there", I'd simply say that the no-mind experience is very
    consistently described by mystics as an absence of such distinctions. But,
    yes, I think the idea of the MOQ is that Quality is completely ubiquitous.
    The distinctions between static and Dynamic are crucial here of course, but
    the divisions within the static side remain in place too. I mean, nature and
    intellect are both part of the static world and exist in a heirarchy and
    this moral relationship is not undone or dismantled by mysticism.
    Transcendence isn't destructive of degenerate.

    Won Chinrester concluded:
    Mystic reality is either in man or out there. It is either already built
    into man's psyche, there to be discovered when you strip away culture and
    ego, or it is out there in the universe which opens up to allow
    enlightenment. If it is "no-mind," then it is intuitive, or it is external.
    What you think?

    dmb replies:
    I think you're trying to describe it in terms of SOM. The mystic reality is
    not in or out of anything. One of the reasons I object to the use of words
    like "instinct" and "intuition" to describe the undivided reality is that
    they tend to conjure up the idea of subjective perceptions, of egos and gut
    feelings and emotional reactions. And that leads to ideas of "in there" and
    "out there". Again, the form of consciousness I'm talking about is
    consistently described as an absence of exactly those divisions.

    But I appreciate your no-longer-silent cheerleading. Would it be OK if I
    picture you in a varsity sweater waving pompoms? And if its not too much to
    ask, may I imagine that its a very tight sweater and you're also in a short,
    pleated skirt? With no bloomers?

    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 : Sun Jan 23 2005 - 20:00:27 GMT