Re: MD MOQ and Islam

From: David MOREY (
Date: Sun Feb 22 2004 - 17:54:01 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: Re: MD An atheistic system?"


    My point is that there is a difference between
    reading,say, a mathematical proof and understanding
    it. Understanding goes beyond readin the words out
    or just repeating them. Or to understand say relativity theory
    one has to really discover its meaning as much as Einstein did
    originally. Luckily, good books on the subject make the
    sudden non-dualistic leap of understanding easier for us than
    Einstein. The mugging question is interesting because of what happened
    to Pirsig's son. Clearly you are in a very dualistic situation with a
    You can submit or fight, taking your chances either way, you may
    submit but find that you are more than robbed after you are tied up.
    You can fight and lose. Non-dualistically you might try to make a connection
    with the mugger, you could ask why he/she needs to be out mugging for
    A friend of mine did this once with someone robbing his house and they
    became good friends. But bad stuff happens and sometimes your best option is
    fighting, you cannot break the dualism/conflict/oppostion down. Why we run
    societies that allow so much dualistic conflict and difference to occur I do
    not know,
    other than the fact that we are still very primitivce really. Has genuine
    history started
    to occur yet? You will find this analysis of conflict in Roy Bhaskar's work.

    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Platt Holden" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 4:02 PM
    Subject: Re: MD MOQ and Islam

    > Hi David M,
    > > I have no problem with the emergence of an 'Other'
    > > within experience. I see the cosmos as evolving
    > > from a One to the Many. This is a matter of differentiation,
    > > complexity, evolution, and also alienation. But if we originate from a
    > > then there is always the possibility of withdrawing from dualism, or
    > > leaping across it to experience union in a new way, or at a different
    > > level
    > I didn't mean to imply there is a "problem" with dualism. Without it, we
    > wouldn't survive for long. We divide to survive. All thought, language,
    > and logic are based on such fundamental dualisms as yes/no, good/bad,
    > friend/enemy, beneficial/dangerous, Dynamic/static Quality.
    > > Non-dual unity is easy for children, but when attained in maturity
    > > is more of an achievement and contains a more reflective complexity. In
    > > way such adult experience is not so much pre-language as beyond
    > > but consequently, also containing the achievements and experience of
    > > language but getting beyond it, perhaps we need to think about this less
    > > terms of language's abstract symbols and more about the way language
    > > understanding possible, does not all ganuine understanding imply a
    > > non-dualistic leap over the divide from self to other.
    > Well, I'd like to hear more about the difference between language-based
    > understanding and "genuine" understanding. For example, to understand in
    > theory that "we are one" will not help me much when confronted with
    > mugger. Please explain further.
    > Thanks,
    > Platt
    > 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 : Sun Feb 22 2004 - 17:57:14 GMT