> Hi Bo,
> I don't know how versed you are in the MOQ but according to my > view (of its view) each level represent a reality, and as intellect is > the highest level its S/O - scientific - view is often regarded as > reality itself .... in the Western world at least. However there is > the social reality below intellect and it is dominant in other > cultures - the Middle East for example. (the "Far East" has > reached a Q-like stage above intellect) Yet because the Quality > Reality only is known to this tiny group (and a still tinier fraction > understands it correctly) intellect is confused. It does not know > any levels and is at a loss to interpret - for instance - the present > social value rebounding in the form of terrorism. (this is just me > lecturing, never mind). I am in agreement with this. If I understood Pirsig's thesis correctly, social patterns will try to retain their configuration and resist change. ie all static patterns will naturally try to resist change. Dynamic quality will introduce entropy into the static system. Hmm...thermodynamics? > > The "greater reality" is of course the Quality Reality and it can't > be "known by intellectual means" (seen from the intellectual > level) that's the whole point. Intellect is a static level, blind > to the > "greater Quality Reality", this is what I have been banging on for > years, but most people insist on a "dynamic intellect" that can > harbour all kinds of ideas included the MOQ. The MOQ applies > intelligent analysis, but no longer in intellect's service. I don't > know what meditation is exactly, but I have spent a lot of "energy- > work" on loosening intellect's ties.. I would tend to agree with what you have articulated. But yet we try... Meditation is energy-work -- to break the knots that have formed in our intellects. In the Indian tradition (and I mean India-Indian), the mind is just another sensory faculty and isn't put on as great a pedestal that it is put in the West. And there is a lot more abstraction of the mind (Manas, Chitta, Vivek, etc) there-in. > All talk about mysticism, language not reflecting reality, pointing > to the moon, just sitting ..etc. is Western people's half-baked > ideas about Oriental wisdom, there surely was a lot of language > (thinking) and what you call "intellectual analyses" (IMO > intelligent ...) to break with intellect's S/O.. > This is what I notice in posts by Krimel (especially) -- where there seems to be a grafted/implanted notion that Mysticism, Religion, Philosophy are somehow distinct and disparate, mutually exclusive compartments. The Indian understanding of this matter (can speak from what I have seen/read/learnt growing up in India) is different. There is no distinct demarcation. Dharma is not Religion. Darshana is not Philosophy. There is no term for Mysticism (perhaps loosely Bhakti, but that is translated as "devotion" in English). Dharma includes Darshana. Darshana involves Dharma. They are mutually transmutable and also complementary. Now, that might be a deviation from the norm on this forum (I guess the majority of members here are Westerners, at least by way of birth) and might seem odd, is very natural and common to those of us who hail from the East. A morally healthy Hindu is dharmic (lives by the way) and is Darshanic. Isn't it this "Inquiry into Morals" that Pirsig sought to unearth in his book "Lila"? Since I belong to that part of the world and can relate better to that system (Eastern) and I see glaring flaws in the Western methods of inquiry, hence my attempt at introducing this entropy into the system that is MoqTalk (perhaps a tad presumptuous, but motivated by earnest interest)... Regards, Dwai 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/
