[MD] Static latching & faith

[Heather Perella]

Hello Scott,

     I know this was some time ago, but a lot of
postings have been put forth since I last was able to
access the internet.

     Scott said:  "This is why I made the distinction
between intentional subject and Cartesian subject -- a
distinction which Pirsig unfortunately seems to be
unaware of.  The latter is human mentality. The former
is that which takes *anything* as an object, including
human mentality. Merrell-Wolff describes it as the
thread on which all objects --including thoughts,
feelings, the idea of oneself, and of course perceived
objects -- are strung. Now M-W holds that this thread
is more or less like Northrop's field, and I agree
with that.  But *empirically*, there is no way to
choose between this view and a view 
such as Dennett's that this thread is just a
convenient fiction."

     Is your argument about the 'thread' dealing with
(a) the world is connected together [by this 'thread']
or (b) the world is actually separated [and the
'thread' is a human concept]?

     Scott said in the most recent post of his:  "the
undifferentiated aesthetic continuum is Divine, which
is to say, it is not part of the experience of
everyday, non-mystically Awakened people. So to base a
philosophy on it is to base a philosophy on faith
(faith that the mystics who report such experience are
reporting authentically), and such a philosophy is not
empirical."

     The undifferentiated aesthetic continuum is
ordinary life.  Ordinary life is mystical, but if
mystical becomes something non-empirical then it is
not ordinary life.  The ordinary life of me walking
outside of the house listening to the birds sing or
sitting here at the computer listening to the birds
sing is a sound I cannot talk or type to you.   You
have to hear the songs with your own ear.  It is both
breathtaking, awe-inspiring, and yet ordinary life. 
DQ is here in this quiet moment, and then I try to
discuss this with you and the empirical world that I
experience transforms via ordinary human mind into a
topic about birds singing that we humans could
question, describe, and not fully sing to each other,
thus, the experience is not of my wording and I could
theorize about these birds and bring out the
instruments of science to record their songs.  I still
also experience just sitting here and listening,
letting all the questions and wonderings of this
moment pass on by as the song goes from note to note.
     To notice the empirical or if something is not
empirical is to notice DQ then put it into static
patterns of non-empiricality.  The empirical of DQ
conceptualized by values that conceptualize SQ.  I
think this is how empirical could be used in a MOQ
discussion.  
     I could listen to the bird, draw the bird,
scientifically measure the bird, but what is this bird
really, that so much can come of it by us human beings
on this earth?  What is this ordinary life so within
reach scientifically, yet, at the same time so
conceptually out of reach by such events that go on
and on each new day to put the sun in such a
conceptual position that has changed for humans over
and over again?  DQ I would say.

SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com