Hi Horse, Some comments below. I have cut my original statements and kept yours to keep the conversation going.
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Horse <[email protected]> wrote: > > So if mystical reality and spiritual reality are the same thing what are the > advantages of changing the label? I don't think we need to change the label, since it seems to be a more modern label, that of mysticism. The only point would be to see the similarity with other labels such as spirituality to allow bridges from other philosophies which have been elaborated more. > > Well, that's a problem right there. DQ is not 'something happening' or part > of anything as such. Spirit is a concept, so to bring in concepts of or > concepts about, w.r.t. what is non-conceptual and experiential, immediately > moves the whole thing back to static reality! Yes, I understand the reservation to creating a static reality with concepts. The only reason to do so is to move on with the metaphysics. If we leave something as unknowable, we get stuck. Static realities are all descriptions of something unknown underlying them. They are however useful to progress understanding into depths which we would like to explore. With my notion of it all being a creation, there should not be any problem with providing static analogies, so long as we do not get stuck or misguided by them. > [Mark before] >> As I have said before, my understanding of Zen (which I got from priests) >> is that one has to balance the spiritual with the physical. > [Horse] > This looks more like balancing the mental with the physical. Balancing what > is non-conceptual with what is conceptual is a different matter and I can't > see how it can be done. If concepts don't apply then how do we apply them to > comparison with concepts? That's what I understand by balancing anyway. [Mark] Balancing for me is one of being aware of DQ. It is possible to create static concepts by noting its influence on static concepts. A familiar analogy would be that of gravity. We can only infer that gravity exists by its effect. The same could possibly be done with DQ. As such we create static qualities which are always on the move and being changed as we explore. > > > Aren't they one and the same? I thought DQ, Mystic Reality and Spiritual > reality were labels for the same thing. [Mark] Yes, I am fine with treating them in the same way. Spiritual reality has a lot of baggage associated with it, so we prefer mystical reality in this day and age. > > > I'm still not sure how labelling DQ as Spiritual reality does this or how it > makes it clearer. Applying more concepts to what is non-conceptual seems a > retrograde step. [Mark] For me it makes it clearer because we can then bridge to other philosophies which have created an elaborate understanding of these things. The concept of DQ is not an unusual proposal. We just need to modernize it with current science and philosophy and whatever else we can think of. > > > Wouldn't it be better to try and include those philosophies under the > umbrella of the MoQ instead, which also contains other benefits such as how > the non-conceptual (spiritual) relates to the static reality of the MoQ and > the evolutionary structure that it describes. [Mark] Certainly we can use MOQ to include everything. To understand that everything we may want to use tools from other philosophies. The purpose would be to spread understanding of MoQ. We understand it, others do not. > > Don't get me wrong here, I'm not just criticising for the sake of it. Just > trying to see what extra benefits can be gained. What you're saying is > interesting - I'm just not seeing how it fits with the MoQ as Pirsig > proposed it. [Mark] We take concepts from Pirsig and look for their complementary concepts elsewhere. Several disciplines can be used to create a broader metaphysics which we call MoQ. This is of course already being done, but we seem to have some issues with semantics and misunderstanding of what other philosophies are proposing. > Cheers, Mark > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
