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

[ian glendinning]

Hi DMB, You said
"I think its quite unreasonable to suggest that Ant's statement was
unreasonable."

I didn't, but he did imply his agreement to the "possible" was slanted
to the "unlikely" end ... that was his preceeding word -  begrudging
was a rhetorical choice on my part (followed by a smilie, to emphasis
that, but hey).

Anyway, whilst I do indeed "pick-up on" points that look more
absolutist that they should "in my opinion", you miss the point in
your use of the word "opponent".

Far from suggesting that the other person is actually taking an
unreasonably absolutist stance (I do know you two reasonably well), I
am on the contrary suggesting that without the "implied" absolutist
words we would have stronger, wider, grounds for agreement.

Interestingly since starting this response I see Case has also chimed
in with the point I was actually making as politely as I could with
someone I already agreed with,  that social contexts do not
necessarily exclude the mystical - far from it. There a good and bad
quality social contexts as I know both you and Ant already know. Sorry
if it offends for me to point that out.

Ian

On 8/13/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ant said:
> ...Mysticism (i.e. being an adult when dealing with DQ) requires that
> independence of mind you're unlikely - though not impossible - to find in a
> social context (i.e. being a member of an established "religion"invented by
> some one else). Again, as I have said before, the Buddha points out that you
> are best "seeing for yourself" regarding DQ.  It really is an important
> point in understanding the MOQ.
>
> Ian replied:
> I agree with you, despite the somewhat begrudging "though not impossible"
> :-) ...I think you are really talking about the quality of diffferent social
> contexts,...
>
> dmb says:
> Hang on a minute. Let's pause for a moment to examine this little fragment.
> I think you've been playing a little trick on me for a while and now you're
> doing it to Ant. Why say he's begrudging anything? He'd already said it was
> unlikely, which already means its possible. Adding that it is also NOT
> IMpossible not only reiterates what's already been said, it uses a double
> negative for emphasis - and dashes too -. See, I think the trick is to paint
> your opponent as more kind of absolutist, someone who lacks subtlety, sees
> things in black and white terms and as a generally unreasonable person.
>
> But I think its completely unfair and inaccurate to construe it that way.
> There is nothing absolutist about that sentence, either in style or
> substance. I think its quite unreasonable to suggest that Ant's statement
> was unreasonable. Naturally, I don't like it much when you do it to me
> either. Its logically bogus and amounts to nothing more than mere insult.
>
> Also, it seems that you missed the point. You say you agree, but its tough
> to see that in the explanations that follow. I don't think "seeing for
> yourself" is a matter of picking one static interpretation over the other,
> meta or not. The Buddha was refering to direct experience, not a static
> intellectual evaluation.
>
> dmb
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>