Jaap and MOQ Foci.
A few posts back you asked about the place of mysticism in the
MOQ. I wrote a reply, but dropped it trying not to proceed too fast.
Now you touch upon it again and I'll drop a quick note on it.
You wrote:
> David wrote
> >Does anyone else see Pirsig putting mysticism at
> > the center of the MOQ, or is it just me? But seriously,...
> This is something I agree with fully. As you can read my bio the
> first reason MOQ interests me is the space it has for mysticism and
> "occult" theories.
> I remember some months ago someone (Denis ?) asked "... if moq is of
> a higher level (than the intellectual), why than am I not shining
> like a Budha to all the intellectuals in the gutter ? ... " When you
> do not see the mystic part of moq you only understand moq (i.e. from
> intellectual level down) but as I stated before you have to believe
> in moq before "understanding" it completely. When you "understand"
> also the mystic part completely your intellect WILL shine like a
> Budha; I know this is a very dangerous statement but I hope there is
> someone out there to see it also. If you don't call my a lunatic or
> something.
"Occultism" (!!) seen from the MOQ is something that has missed
our agenda completely, but it was the sententence ....if moq is of a
higher level (than the intellectual) why am I not shining like a
Buddha...and so on .... that struck me. Haven't you noticed my
effort to see subject/object-metaphysics as the intellectual level?
Something that immediately makes the MOQ a "higher level". This
means that the mysticism we spot from intellect is DYNAMIC
QUALITY, but will eventually crystallize into a STATIC level
(=existence seen in the moq light)
So rest assured Jaap, someone ...out here... also sees it. You're
definitely not lunatic.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST