[MD] the prime directive of the MOQ

[Scott Roberts]

DMB,

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.

Scott:
For the umpteenth time, I am not saying, nor do I say that FM-W is saying, 
that ultimate reality can be known intellectually. What I am saying is that 
FM-W said that in his Awakened state, thought did not cease, but instead 
turned into a higher order of thinking, one in which "a single concept would 
take lifetimes to elaborate in relative [that is, unAwakened intellectual] 
terms" and "thinking where the law of contradiction simply doesn't apply" 
(those aren't exact quotes, but close). Further, while most think that the 
limit of normal intellect vis-a-vis mysticism is to get one pointed at the 
moon, FM-W, and Plotinus, say that intellect is a means of travelling to the 
moon. That does not mean that intellect can "know" the moon, but that 
intellect is a valid mystical path. Not for everyone, certainly, but still a 
path. So what I am trying to do in this is point out that this emphasis from 
people like you, Gav, and Pirsig on seeing mysticism as going beyond 
intellect is misleading.

DMB said:
[skipping cheap shot]
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.

Scott
The big difference between Pirsig and Plotinus (and this relates to what I 
said above) is that Pirsig continues to view intellect in S/O terms, that 
is, as there being various X's, and intellect is about knowing X's. Hence, 
intellect is seen as secondary, as derived. The X's are seen as primary 
reality, and so knowing about X's is treated as secondary reality. Plotinus, 
and Merrell-Wolff, see intellect as primary reality.

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

Scott:
Thanks.

- Scott