SA, One thing has become abundantly clear is "certainty" is relative at best. I would venture that those who point out "mysticism" Are "eventualists" that they believe that the universe Will eventully be knowable with certainty(*note faith involved) where as us "mystics" are pretty comfortable with the Idea that "certainty " will never be achieved and choose to focus Subjectivly rather than get caught up with objective certainty. MOQ "mysticism" here is embracing the unknowable Some liken it to "faith" but no matter how you slice it And no matter what you slice it with there is allways A degree of "faith" involved with speculation at any level No one here can argue that at the core of their philosophy There is'nt at least one point where it rests on the faith Of the subject. I mean we are dealing with the term Quality" here folks. How hard and scientific can you get with it. We're all "mystics" to some point. I think we can see past all the fancy Self important psuedosciencePhilsopho-speak. That's what gives MOQ it's uniqueness.
-x I heard a Roshi say this once "zen is like soap, first you wash with it Then you wash it off" -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heather Perella Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] the MOQ and its environment [Marsha] > It is stated that Buddhism is a religion of no-religion. Maybe the > MOQ is a metaphysics of no-metaphysics. But of course, RMP can set > the record straight if he chooses. I still wonder what religion is, and what spirituality is MoQ style. I understand the MoQ is mystical, yet, how does spirituality 'fit' into this toning, this mysticism? Zen is said to be spiritual, yet, what does that mean? I also understand that dynamic quality has been given much 'credit' for the spiritual undertones in the MOQ, as well. Some look at dq and just say its' this New Age crap. I wouldn't mind knowing the difference between New Age crap and non-crap true MoQ mysticism by those that advocate the MoQ has been infected by New Age crap. I know these are a lot of questions, and questions themselves might just re-set the wondering that might be right here in front of me, but these questions do revolve around current debates that I've seen come and go on this forum. By the way, Marsha, Pirsig did mention the MoQ is a no-metaphysics, and yet, for the heavy intellectuals (the one gav was in the post you refer to) don't always like the bone and marrow, the true blood in our veins being what a living philosophy is (the one gav referred to as the guy he was talking to; again from the post your referring to). Many are very familiar with this quote in Lila (Ch. 5): "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics. Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity." Isn't static quality, though, the Metaphysics of the MoQ, and dynamic quality is the Quality of the MoQ? thanks. time to feed the baby, SA ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. 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/ 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/
