[MD] New Model Army, Mystic(DQ) Experience, and Religion (SQ) as Power

[Joseph Maurer]

On Monday 7 August 2006 DMB writes to Case:

Case said:
I agree with the part about no separate intelligences and no "supernatural"
but rationality and logic are what take us out of the gooey emotional,
feeling talk that spirituality ultimately leads to. rationality
should not surplant emotion but when the two work in Harmony... ah, there is
that word again.

dmb says:
Gooey emotional feeling talk. Yea, that's exactly what I was complaining
about when one of the posters defended his "faith" because of the emotional
satisfaction it provides. I could go on all day about how destructive this
can be for individuals and societies alike. In short, this sort of "faith"
is a kind of backward regression into PRE-rational thinking and is
completely different than the TRANS-rational thinking. Again following
Wilber, confusing the former with the latter is called "the pre/trans
fallacy" and there is quite a lot of it going around in our time. This
confusion plays a role in just about every reactionary movement in recent
history. Seen this way, fascism and fundamentalism and neo-paganism are all
regressive steps backward. Seen this way, the mystical experience is not
just a "feeling" but more like a realization, an epiphany, a great big "ah
ha!" moment, a peak experience or something more along those lines.

And yes, something like harmony is the goal. I think the idea in Wilber's
work and in the MOQ is that we need to integrate these various levels so
that they aren't in conflict with one another. Or, when they are in
conflict, we can at least have some reasonable way to distinquish which
level of values is to take precedence.

And I have to say that this is basically the difference between traditional
theism on the one hand and philosophical mysticism on the other. One is
pre-rational while the other is post-rational. And since both are NOT
rational, people get confused and think they are the same. This confusion is
pretty much the definition of tragedy.


Hi DMB, Case and all,

"Gooey emotional feeling talk.." 'Gooey' I suppose means 'personal'. 
'Emotional' I suppose means 'social'. 'Feeling' I suppose means 'direct 
experience'. 'Talk' I suppose refers to language. When I take the sentence 
apart I find 'gooey emotional feeling talk' an expression of morality. 
Compare 'gooey emotional feeling talk' to 'cold distant superior-logic talk' 
of morality.

I distinguish cosmic evolution from conscious evolution. Pirsig 
distinguishes 4 levels. He objects to an objective, subjective split in 
metaphysics. How to talk about morality in enlightenment (conscious 
evolution)? I suppose it must get gooey! It is also very dangerous unless 
others sense 'existence' in the morality.

My take on the social level-an apprehension of existence. The social level 
embodies an experience of order. Feelings are my approach to that order, 
that other. Existence determines the difference. The social level is an 
experience of existence. Taking a shit is real. It is also gooey! Do I have 
to think about that? Leave no turn unstoned. Gooey nonsense can be feeling 
talk, or abstract ideas talk, or body-function talk. Diarrhea of the mouth.

Joe

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] New Model Army, Mystic(DQ) Experience,and Religion (SQ) as 
Power


> Case said:
> I agree with the part about no separate intelligences and no 
> "supernatural"
> but rationality and logic are what take us out of the gooey emotional,
> feeling talk that spirituality ultimately leads to. rationality
> should not surplant emotion but when the two work in Harmony... ah, there 
> is
> that word again.
>
> dmb says:
> Gooey emotional feeling talk. Yea, that's exactly what I was complaining
> about when one of the posters defended his "faith" because of the 
> emotional
> satisfaction it provides. I could go on all day about how destructive this
> can be for individuals and societies alike. In short, this sort of "faith"
> is a kind of backward regression into PRE-rational thinking and is
> completely different than the TRANS-rational thinking. Again following
> Wilber, confusing the former with the latter is called "the pre/trans
> fallacy" and there is quite a lot of it going around in our time. This
> confusion plays a role in just about every reactionary movement in recent
> history. Seen this way, fascism and fundamentalism and neo-paganism are 
> all
> regressive steps backward. Seen this way, the mystical experience is not
> just a "feeling" but more like a realization, an epiphany, a great big "ah
> ha!" moment, a peak experience or something more along those lines.
>
> And yes, something like harmony is the goal. I think the idea in Wilber's
> work and in the MOQ is that we need to integrate these various levels so
> that they aren't in conflict with one another. Or, when they are in
> conflict, we can at least have some reasonable way to distinquish which
> level of values is to take precedence.
>
> And I have to say that this is basically the difference between 
> traditional
> theism on the one hand and philosophical mysticism on the other. One is
> pre-rational while the other is post-rational. And since both are NOT
> rational, people get confused and think they are the same. This confusion 
> is
> pretty much the definition of tragedy.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
> 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/
>