[MD] the prime directive of the MOQ

[Erin]

How does it transcend thought but not include it? When I think of something transcending something I think of it grasping a larger whole.
For example,,,when you talk about expanded rationality..it doesn't seem it is a non-rational means, just an improved rationality.
   
  So when you say "Good point about avoiding regressive hedonism, though. I'll give you that."   
   
  Well that's exactly what it seems you are doing when you glorify the non-rational means.
   
  Erin

   
  
david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
  Scott, Gav and all MOQers:

Scott said to Gav:
But I am arguing with you about what being awake entails. You say that it is 
being aware without thought, and I disagree -- referring to Merrell-Wolff as 
a counter-example. And what's wrong with identifying with one's thinking, as 
long as one doesn't identify with a particular thought? Having made that 
distinction (between dynamic thinking and static thoughts), would you agree 
that not only can thinking provoke awakening, but that a purified thinking 
can be awakening?

dmb butts in:
I think you've confused things terribly here, Scott. I think you not just 
arguing with Gav here, you are also arguing with every version of 
philosophical mysticism I've ever encountered - including your man 
Merrel-Wolff. You are defying the most basic idea in philosophical 
mysticism; that ultimate reality can't be known intellectually, but can be 
known through non-rational means. Zen is one of those means. To put it in 
the starkest, simplest terms, conceptual understanding is different from 
enlightenment. I honestly don't see why you insist on denying and 
obfuscating such obvious distinctions.

Could it be that you want to think of yourself as enlightened and concepts 
are all you have and so you need to redefine enlightment to make it equal to 
intellect?

OK, that's a cheap shot. But these confused arguments really bug me. And it 
goes way back. I remember Scott using quotes from Plotinus as part of his 
"explanation" of his disagreement with the MOQ. As Pirsig's comments in the 
Bagginni interview show, Plotinus is actually one of the most comparable 
thinkings in the world. My point? You seem to have a long history of 
misinterpreting thinkers and then bringing them to this forum to do battle 
with the MOQ. But every time I've bothered to investigate these quoted 
weapons, it turns out they only clarify and support the claims of the MOQ. 
This time I'm not even bother to find out the difference between the quoted 
material and your claims about it. At this point, I can just depend on 
history.

Good point about avoiding regressive hedonism, though. I'll give you that.

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

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/
  


		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos
 Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.