From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 22 2003 - 11:07:38 BST
Hi Wim
You wrote 'Why couldn't mystical religion and art be a
'natural' and sustained dynamic form of
intelligence???'
Perhaps an analogy might convey some of what I am
struggling to express. Consider a forest of
immeasurable size. Consider a wanderer in the forest
characterising the human mind. Consider trails through
this forest characterising the paths of thought that
minds have made since the first thought. The average
wanderer sticks mainly to the well worn trails, maybe
once or twice daring to leave them but feeling
decidedly uncomfortable enough to quickly find the
nearest one again.
The mystic stops following trails for a while and
climbs to the top of a tree where he looks upon the
forest as a whole and the sky above and sees the
beauty which so many never see. He may realise that
there actually isn’t a forest at all. He then climbs
back down into the forest.
The artist walks blindfolded for a while and draws a
picture of where he ends up.
Now, what of the wanderer who, with eyes wide open,
simply finds a way through the forest step by step,
sometimes using trails but without the need to stay on
them longer than necessary? His path may turn out to
be the best yet, but leaves no trail clear enough that
it could be followed.
I’m probably doing unintentional but great injustice
to the mystic and the artist but please accept this as
a quick analogy to try and convey how I feel that a
mind need not 'follow' trails of thought and without
necessarily experiencing visions or producing
artefacts.
I'm characterising mystical religion as an effort to
achieve an exceptional experience and art as an effort
to produce an artefact of one kind or another. I
suspect this may not be what you mean? I was
considering 'dynamic intelligence' as a general
approach to life. So, mysticism or art as an approach
to life? If that's possible I can go along with that.
Also, is mysticism religious by definition?
You wrote 'For me it is a wrong choice of words to
suggest that a mind can or cannot cling to patterns of
thought.'
I acknowledge that patterns of thought are created by
the activity of the mind, much like trails are left
when we walk through the woods enough times, but need
we always stick to the trails?.
It is the tendency of the mind to store the patterns
and furthermore apply them to inappropriate purposes
that I am questioning. E.g. trying to use the patterns
of mathematics to understand the creation of the
universe or seeing that as an apple falls to earth, so
everything falls to something (extreme examples, I
know!, there are more subtle examples).
You wrote 'Without patterns of thought (or emotion or
intuïtion or perception), without intellectual
patterns of value it is impossible to identify a
mind.'
I don't see mind as only identifiable as intellectual
patterns of value. To me intellectual POV are one
aspect of mind.
You wrote 'Intellectual value creates both the subject
(a mind) and objects (thoughts etc.).'
Agreed, SOM patterns of intellect turn everything into
subjects and objects, useful but ultimately flawed in
general circumstances, fundamentally damaging when
trying to consider the mind or the nature of reality.
I am speculating that the intellectual level has
overstretched when it produces a metaphysics, and no
metaphysical system that it produces can allow the
mind to flow in accordance with the flow of Quality. I
am making an implicit assumption that the mind can
flow in accordance with the flow of Quality.
Thanks
Paul
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
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 : Tue Apr 22 2003 - 11:08:40 BST