> Matt:
> I'm not sure you got my distinction between the
> _philosophical_ direct/indirect distinction and the
> _commonsensical_ direct/indirect distinction. As
> far as I can tell, when commenting on the
> philosophical one, you adverted to the common sense
> distinction which I have no trouble with. This is
> the unconscious move that I keep wanting to halt by
> making the distinction between the philosophical and
> commonsensical in the first place. What you said
> was agreeable, but not to the point. What you said
> about "the authority on any experience" was a good
> description of a context in which the common sense
> praise of direct experience proves moot, effectively
> "What if you can't afford a ticket to Tibet?"
> That, however, is not what I'm talking about. I'm
> talking about a distinction in which experience
> itself, experience qua experience, is divided into
> two. _Not_ individual experiences, which are sorted
> out on a case by case basis--an abstract distinction
> between reality that is experienced directly and
> reality that is experienced indirectly. Thus, on
> the view of Pirsig that jives with Dewey, where we
> are always directly connected to reality, reading a
> book and going to Tibet are both direct experiences
> of "reading a book" and "going to Tibet,"
> respectively. This leaves only the common sense
> distinction between direct/indirect available
> because, philosophically speaking, we are always and
> everywhere connected directly with reality.
SA: Matt, I didn't name/categorize what I was
referring to as philosophical or commonsensical, but
the philosophical I understand as well as the latter.
This is where way back when when you were discussing
with dmb I mentioned that reality doesn't necessary
have a split in indirect/direct experience, but this
is when I was discussing philosophically, which you
were trying, apparently, to point out the
commonsensical use of direct/indirect experience is
valid on a conventional scale, so to speak. This
distinction helps in discussion or what have you, and
the philosophical understanding is what helps me use
the commonsensical without getting caught up in any
hardened thinking that the commonsensical is the
ground (reality) in which any static pattern rests. I
can notice the direct/indirect split as an analogy,
thus, softening this experience of a split do I don't
rattle in any paradoxical cycles (samsara if you
will).
Matt:
> However, in the mystic's philosophical distinction
> that occurs at the beginning of Lila, where Pirsig
> talks about words taking you farther away from
> reality, in ZMM where Pirsig raises his hand in
> Benares and asks derisively whether the professor
> really meant by maya that the destruction of
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an illusion--these are
> examples of the philosophical distinction at work.
> Language qua language is a barrier between us and
> reality. When words are anywhere in the vicinity of
> your experience of reality, you are far from it,
> which is why you meditate, why you try to still your
> mind. And there are more variations in the history
> of philosophy of this distinction, which is a
> distinction of distance, besides one between direct
> and indirect experience.
SA: This mystical approach does create a distance,
one of space and time. A running away from
commonsensical reality kin to binge drinking to escape
reality. I merge mystical and commonsensical so their
distinctions remain, but the mystical helps me handle
the commonsensical in a way that is more kind. More
kind, meaning, if I (and this is a personal approach,
but hopefully not one of too drastic of a distance as
to make it not understood very well by others), thus,
if I don't quiet my experience, distance myself from
being tied up with words, then I wouldn't have the
space between words to clearly articulate a sentence.
Matt:
> Many boggle at being asked to think of a distinction
> between a philosophical and a commonsensical use of
> words or ideas, phrases, images, whatnot, sometimes
> because they've never been asked to, sometimes
> because denying the distinction is important to
> them.
SA: It is commonsensical that I and a tree are
distinct in experience, and if I were one with the
tree, then I would be just like a tree, yet, I have a
human mind and think, therefore, I can't be totally
one and the same as a tree.
It is philosophical that I and a tree are one
and the same in experience for this universe is
something the tree and I experience, though
commonsensically different, it is this universe, this
reality, that grounds the tree and I in an experience
that is the same reality. The tree and I do not
experience, at base, a different universe, as
mentioned, the experience may be experienced
differently (the commonsensical), but the reality is
the same (the philosophical). Is this what your
pointing out?
Matt:
> But to aid understanding, let me try and
> explain one way of thinking about it--think of the
> distinction between a philosophical view and a
> commonsensical view as the difference between a
> top-down approach and a bottom-up approach.
SA: The rest of your post was cut off in my yahoo
reply board, but I opened a new window to read it so I
could comment here.
I see myself going back and forth. Some days
top-down, and others bottom-up, I guess depending on
which one I feel I need more of in my life. I'm more
inclined to be a bottom-up due to if I focused solely
on thoughts being reality, it tends to clog-up
feelings, the heart, and even my eyes don't see very
clearly. I don't feel the cool air in the morning
very well. I become too heady, as I call it, but if I
don't abstract artistically, then thoughts will build
automatically and without review upon these thoughts
of mine I still build up with thoughts and don't find
release for them. From the ground up is where I find
creativity, and from the top-down is where I find
understanding and contemplation of what this creative
ground is.
I think I understand what your referring to,
and this has helped me understand where I come from on
occasion and why I might even argue against myself,
for one day I might refer to the mystical and another
day refer to thoughts, and may not completely realize
that what I'm arguing against today is grounded in
what I argued for yesterday.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
