Hi Focs: I'll skip the part where I beg everyone to stick close to the text. Thanks, Diana. Thanks to Erik and Jaap. Whew! I've decided to stick around afterall. Glenn, in my opinion, you've destroyed your own credibility as a philosopher. And by the way, you should read that offensive paragraph again because I've never EVEN SEEN peyote. Now, to the issues... NOETIC and INEFFABLE. As Erik told us, that is James' description of the mystical experience. I'd like to talk about that. I think its pretty clear that the peyote experience had a NOETIC quality. You know, he weaved a web like never before. His mind turned toward the examination of complex realities and all that. I don't have to type those quotes again, you remember. And it seems pretty safe to say that Pirsig himself was pretty impressed by his insights. I think he was trying to say that he learned something very important that night. Several posters have complained that Pirsig's insight into the plain-spoken indians isn't very spectacular and that it doesn't seem very mystical either. But of course you're only reacting to Pirsig's re-telling and its very much a had-to-be-there kind of thing. That's where the ineffability comes into the picture. But hold that thought, and let me stick to the noetic quality of these experiences... CONTEMPLATING YOUR NAVEL A mystical experience doesn't look like much from the OUTSIDE. To an observer who has never had such an experince, a peyote eater just looks like some crazy-eyed fool. You've seen plenty of parodies of the tripped-out hippie who fascinated with some little trivial thing. Jim on Taxi, for example. Or Donald Sutherland in the bathtub with his students in ANIMAL HOUSE. Dharma's Dad, Cheech and Chong. You've seen a million of 'em. And there's a little truth in it, but they're mostly just popular misconceptions. Its better to listen to Pirsig or anyone who knows what they're talking about and who values the experience. Everything important about it is inside, an experience that can't be appreciated by someone who just there watching. There's not much to see - not unless you're actually having the experience. FROM THE INSIDE it doesn't really matter what you "bore in on with intensity". You'll end up spinning a web no matter what grabs the attention. One of the reason's that the web is such a good metaphor is that each part is connected to every other part, so it doesn't really matter where you start. It like your mind is going beneath the surface of things and any object or event will seem totally fascinating because you're sort of seeing it for the first time. Everything seems amazing, divine, profound. Anything can serve as the door, as a way to begin to peel back the illusions. The de-hallucinogenic effect doesn't require Indians or Anthropologists or anything special. Yet nothing is trivail or unimportant in the mystical state of mind, that's why Jim on Taxi can stare at a peanut for hours. But the secret is that Jim is no idiot. Those who fail to see the profound, divine, fascinating and spectacular nature of a peanut - those people are the real idiots. : ) That's what the NOETIC nature of the experience is all about. I don't mean to suggest that Pirsig's thoughts about the Indians are inconsequential, not at all. I'm just trying to provide some idea's about the NOETIC quality of mystical experience. I've spun web's around various things myself, but the same basic picture ultimately emerges no matter where the web begins. And there's certainly the feeling that you've seen a very real picture. You really feel like you've learned something about who and what you really are. That's what I meant by "cosmic confidence". It creates a deep center, a well to draw from, so to speak. There is plenty of Western-style psychological data to back this up. These kind of experiences really do help people. But its really hard to what what has been seen. That's the ineffability part of it. And since I'm very short on time, I'll just say a little about it. And I've got to cheat a little to do it... Bodvar included a quote, from somewhere past the first three chapters, that showed how the mystical objections to his metaphysics would be tougher to beat. (Than the Positivists) And this exactly about the ineffability. The mystics object to Pirsig's MOQ precisely because it "effs" the ineffable. It describes the indescribe-able. It speaks of the Tao, so to speak. And this, my friends, is just one more whopping piece of evidence that mysticism is central to the MOQ. Otherwise, what are the mystic objections all about? I don't think the MOQ can be properly understood without this mystical element. And this kind of conversation absolutely depends on a proper understanding. I mean, we have to agree what ON the lines, before we can even begin to grasp what's between the lines. And with novels that's where the action really is. We're so far behind that we haven't even begun. MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
