[Krimel]
> > Pirsig's observations on the peyote induced
> mysticism versus its low grade
> > imitations is exactly the reason we should be
> looking at brain chemistry and
> > how it is altered.
[SA currently]
This is why I see dmb and Krimel saying the same
thing. Dmb wouldn't separate brain chemistry and its'
studying of, from peyote induced mysticism. Dmb would
counter the experience of the peyote induced mysticism
will not be found under the microscope in the brain
chemistry, and this is correct. It is also correct
that the brain chemistry will change during a peyote
induced mystic trip. The pattern would be noticeable
enough (I assume) that one could see the difference
between one on peyote and one not on peyote. As for
any hallucinations during the peyote experience, the
brain chemistry might change enough to show
hallucinations, I don't know, but I base this from how
somebody knows when a person is dreaming during sleep.
Now, for the actual dreams, the visuals the induced
emotions, this are changes in physiology, but when I
look at brain chemistry I can't find the visual
hallucinations. Does that mean all of a sudden the
person is not hallucinating? No. So where are they?
Well, take away the brain chemistry and the
hallucinations are gone, and this suggests a certain
unity between brain chemistry and peyote experience
(with the visual hallucinations). The hallucinations
are present while the brain chemistry is around.
Dmb is trying to point out that the experience of
peyote will not be found in intellect, social, or the
brain chemistry isolated unto themselves. This is
true, but also take away brain chemistry and the
peyote experience will not be what usually happens
with the human being. It would be a peyote experience
that rocks have too. This is why I see Krimel saying
to dmb that dmb's mysticism seems to 'float' (my
words) somewhere 'out there', and thus, dmb's
mysticism seems detracted from James' psychology. For
dmb doesn't understand how mysticism is anchored in
brain chemistry. Yet, dmb doesn't 'float' mysticism
or this radical empiricism. Dmb understands that
mysticism is anchored in a 'hands-on' empiricism that
is tied most directly with dirt and air.
What seems to be the differing point between the
two is dmb says experience does not come from biology.
Krimel says yes it does. Qualities first split is
static-dynamic and thus, biology is derived from this
split and this seems to be dmb's position. Krimel
notices the evolutionary level system of quality where
inorganic is first, then organic, then social, etc...,
and this seems to be Krimel's position. The moq
supports both positions. I would say any static
pattern, once static, follows Krimels' position. Now
how one gets to Krimels' position, then the
first-split is to be understood. Both are correct,
and Krimels' position is, I would say, more detailed
in its' understanding for its' more static.
If I'm off-track, then you guys can point out
where, but this is how I see Krimel's and dmb's
discussion, so, if I'm incorrect on certain points on
how I'm describing somebodies position, then it would
help me understand better if this is pointed out.
thanks.
snow everywhere,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
