Hello Glenn and focii
First I have to apologize for some of my argument were not to accurate, I
have to admit I didn't read every post last months; I changed study so I'm
far less online.
If we are going to discuss drugs I will have to defend the Dutch policy,
certainly now French and American officials accuse us to make entire
generations addicted. I admit drugs are not something to play with but its
people own responsibility just like alcohol and smoking.
> 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.
Well I don't dare to say I'm an expert in mystics but I read many European
"occultists" (what means either mystic, scientist or charlatan) and even the
ones who stood outside any repressive church or communitie never included
mystics in metaphysics or phylosophy, that would be "unscientific". They
speak of "astral light" (comperable to the dharma light) but never
succesfully integrate this in there theories accept to explain things the
young science could not yet explain like electricity and magnetism or things
like dreaming. Besides they never speak of it as undefinable, it's simply
the spirit of God and therefor completely predictable (their logic, not
mine).
So the (some) Europeans did know mystics but this was considered to be a
very dangereous and obscure "science" and would never be integrated in every
days live, at least it would be something for priests not for "normal"
believers.
>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.
Maybe I'm wrong but I always look at books in retrospect since any "good"
book has a composition wich didn't originate by accident. Althought this
book sounds autobiografic there can still be an underlying composition.
The zuni example is very important for the moq theory, it is the break
through of the idea of intellectual/more dynamic vs. social/less dynamic but
I think this is only the break through for the formal terms and definitions.
Reading in ZAMM about classic vs. romantic I can imagine the "feeling" was
already there. So I can also imagine that the static vs. dynamic "feeling"
was already there during the peyote session. Of course without asking Pirsig
it remains speculation but it would make a good composition, isn't moq not
all about "feeling" something before defining it?
What's good, Pheadrus,
and what's not good,
do we need anyone to tell us these things?
Well, the very bases of moq: the feeling something has Quality or not.
Greeting,
Jaap
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST