Marsha, It is precisely *because* you're such a mystic that the intellectual question makes no sense to you. It's like asking a Victorian whose only interested in social values what the biological value of the human body is. They didn't have the slightest idea. They wouldn't understand the question.
It is precisely *because* you're such a mystic that you don't like either/or type logic or reasoning. It is precisely *because* you're such a mystic that you prerfer the wisdom of the East. All that said - if you use logic you cannot help but create either/or type divisions.. Example: Either you're an intellectual who likes James - or you're not an intellectual.. (Marsha's logic). We cannot distinguish between two things without said logic. The ability to create a division between two things is a beautiful thing. But also Mystically degenerate. "To the intellect the process of defining Quality has a compulsive quality of its own. It produces a certain excitement even though it leaves a hangover afterward, like too many cigarettes, or a party that has lasted too long. Or Lila last night. It isn't anything of lasting beauty; no joy forever. What would you call it? Degeneracy, he guessed. Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity. But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics are made of. Purity, identified, ceases to be purity. Objections to pollution are a form of pollution." Intellectually and mystically degenerately yours, David. > David, > > On May 23, 2013, at 6:48 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > David Harding: > And so I conclude - Marsha is a mystic and has no interest in intellectual > quality or questions about whether something exists before we think about it. > > Marsha: > So, David, EITHER I discuss with you 'whether something exists before we > think about it' <a statement that makes no sense to me> to entitle myself as > 'intellectual' OR I get labeled a mystic (an obvious charlatan)? That is > your line of thinking? You're another Flatlander? Either/or? Yes/no? > True/false? 0/1? A or not-A? You're another Aristotelian? Ah-choo! > Ah-choo! Ah-choo! > > Goodness, it is no wonder I prefer the wisdom of the East: "the Tao is the > groundless and boundless; it is the flowing, dynamic, yet unmoved amidst > infinite change." > > If you want to discuss 'whether something exists before we think about it', > present your views on the topic. If I have something to contribute maybe I > will, or maybe I'll remain silent. But at the moment the topic makes no > sense to me. > > 'If this is, that comes to be; from the arising of this, that arises; if this > is not, that does not come to be; from the stopping of this, that is stopped'. > - Buddha > > It's not what 'James says', but so what? > > Marsha 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
