Hi Jason
On 23 Apr 99, at 10:49, Jason wrote:
> I do not accept Kevins hypothesis that there is a fifth level beyond
> Intellect as he (and others) confuse and conflate the mystic (the
> vessel), mysticism (the approach) and mystic experience ( -> DQ).
<SNIP>
> I hate to interfere in the conversation but I have received a letter form
> Pirsig himself in which he stated that there is a possiblity of a "so
> called" level above the intellect and even above this mystical or dynamic
> quality everyone is talking about. The problem is that these dynamic
> levels can never be realized because there are so many static levels that
> pull us down from being able to understand them.
I don't see that there is necessarily a problem with a higher level
above Intellect, per se, but my reference here is specifically to
Kevin's hypothesis of mysticism and not to the general theoretical
possibility. Any higher level would not be (strictly) static from an
Intellectual point of view. It would probably be seen as DQ - as
indeed is mystical experience. Also, any attempt to contain it within
static intellectual values would be immoral from an MOQ perspective
> In reference to the
> comment that Pirsig may be a mystic I would have to say that he is an
> ordinary person just trying to explain things for the better understanding
> of the people. I guess if this makes him a mystic then he is, however I
> don't really think this does make him a mystic. I would have to say that
> he is just a person pointing to mystic or dynamic realms which cannot be
> grasped by the human experience.
I'd probably disagree on a minor(?) point here. The mystic experience
cannot be fully grasped by rational explanation as it is beyond
rationality but experience of the mystic or dynamic realms (by this I
mean mystic experience) is the goal of the mystic. Within radical
empiricism or the MOQ, dynamic experience is equateable although
not necessarily identical with DQ.
> I invite anyone to try and explain
> themselves if they feel that they can grasp any aspect of dynamic reality
> in a rational manner and present it to others for understanding. For
> rationalism is co-dependent on mysticism, but rationalism is in the human
> realm of understanding while mysticism is not.
Again, a semantic difference exists between mysticism and mystic
experience. I'm also not quite sure what you mean when you say
rationalism is co-dependent on mysticism - are you affirming what
Struan said earlier or something different.
Finally, as I see it, both rationalism and mysticism (as a means of
explanation) are within the human realm of understanding - they
appear not to be but generally they are both to do with the
explanation of either observation or experience. Traditionally one
deals with the 'external' reality whilst the other regards 'internal'
reality.
Horse
PS
I'd be interested to know more about Pirsig's reply to you regarding
other possible levels. Share if you would but no problem if you feel
it's private.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
