Hello Jaap,
Thank you for commenting on my post.
But first, for all who read this from David B:
"Finally, I can "testify" to this kind of experience [taking drugs]. And, my
friends, homecoming doesn't even begin to describe it. Take the "ah haa!" of
your greatest insight, the "oh my God!" of your greatest orgasm, add them
together, multiply it by a thousand and then you'll be in the general area of
the ball park."
At the risk of having you lecture me about how western society should re-examine
drugs, I'm going to stick my neck out and say a very uncool, unhip, Dad-like
thing. This paragraph of yours is irresponsible. We should at least assume there
are some impressionable people on this forum, particularly those on the younger
side who are "searching", who might take your "testimony" and do something
stupid with drugs and end up hurting themselves, either by overdosing or
developing an addiction. Not everyone can experiment with a drug and leave it
alone. You make drugs sound legitimate and safe because they're used in Indian
ceremony, but it's well documented that American Indian reservations are hotbeds
of drug and alcohol abuse. Were you aware of this? -- End of Public Service
Announcement.
Jaap Karssenberg wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
> Glenn wrote:
> > Well, I don't know about 'contentious', but I'm not convinced the "MOQ is an
>
> > intellectual description of this mystical insight". After all, the insight
> is
> > that a large part of American values come from Indians. This seems pretty
> far
> > afield from the MOQ.
>
> Is it? I think the difference between Indian culture and European culture is
> crucial for MOQ. In European culture I never found anything like DQ, all
> European systems are closed and don't leave any room for the undefinable.
I don't know much about that unfortunately but in response to my same post Diana
said "In fact Europeans have their own traditions of mysticism which stretch
back before they had any contact with Indians." which is exactly opposite to
what you are saying.
> I think the reason that the American culture so greatly influenced Europe
> and the rest of western cultures is that the American culture has some
> spirit wich is recognised but can't be described. This is some Dynamical
> spirit brought in by the "Indian way of live".
> Understanding this Dynamical spirit, wich I think is more Dynamical than the
> intellectual level, is the very bases of MOQ.
It's fine that you should think this, but the argument being made by David B is
that Pirsig's MOQ unfolded before him as he had a peyote induced mystical
insight about the Indian influence on American values. You're saying it's
crucial because it points up some Dynamic aspect of Indian culture, but Pirsig
never says anything about Dynamic Quality in chapter three to corroborate your
idea. You're either reading this into it in retrospect, or speculating that
Pirsig also thought this way.
In fact the real breakthru about Dynamic quality and MOQ came not during the
peyote episode but during his readings about the Zuni priest (I think it's ch.
9). I say "in fact" because Pirsig quite plainly tells us so, and there's no
need to even speculate on the matter. Incidently, Pirsig makes no mention of
being 'chemically high' during the Zuni readings, although the insights he got
from it certainly gave him a natural one.
>
> >If the insight had been to split reality into SQ and DQ, I'd be more
> enthusiastic about >your idea.
>
> Visions don't come in this abstract words. If they did they would be of an
> itellectual level and therefor ne longer mystic. I think you have to "feel"
> DQ before you are able to understand the complete being of MOQ.
>
This is all well and good, but I don't know why this reads like a complaint.
I've already argued that the actual insight was not mystic, and neither would
this one have been.
Regards,
Glennn
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST