[MD] mystical awareness and intellectual explantions

[MarshaV]

At 05:33 PM 3/7/2007, you wrote:
>Marsha & All
>
>On 6 March you wrote:
>
> > Maybe like the Buddha is both Buddha mind and ordinary mind, the
> > Metaphysics of Quality is both Dynamic Quality and static quality.
>
>Yes, the said Buddhist dichotomy correspond to the DQ/SQ one,
>I strongly agree with that, but to a Westerner with no MOQ
>"training" this brings no enlightenment. Mind is subjective
>whether Buddha's or anyone else.

It seems to me that mind is totally subjective most of the time, but 
occasionally it is totally objective (becoming the object).  One or 
the other, not both.

> > And the SOM is much less, as it is embedded in static quality.  I get
> > this.  My point is that our Western languages are reflective of SOM,
> > and therefore using these languages diminish the direct MOQ experience.
>
>Well, the mere knowledge of a S/O M is part of the construction
>of an East/West bridge, like me before Pirsig the Westerner does
>not know the S/O as a metaphysics but believe that is how reality
>is "factory made". Language the culprit? Hardly, Buddhists may
>speak Western languages without being hemmed by that.

Language is not the culprit, but reflects the habits of the 
intellect.  For Westerners that would be a dualistic, subject/object 
point-of-view.



>Now, it was Phaedrus' discovery that Quality refused to fit either
>subject or object category that led him to see that there IS a
>SOM. Then his revolution of making Quality the creator of the
>SOM, his subsequent DQ/SQ divide and the static levels - all this
>in addition to the SOL interpretation (intellect=S/O) completes the
>said East/West bridge

I have sympathy with your 'intellect=S/O'.  But that may be a problem 
in the West.  I am curious about the Oriental languages.  I just 
bought a book, 'Oracle Bones', by Peter Hessler.  I bought it because 
in a review, by Publisher's Weekly, it stated, "and he pays 
particular attention to how language affects culture,".  I'm looking 
for clues to whether, or not, Chinese is primarily a s/o 
language.  If Chinese is not a s/o language, and language reflects 
the intellect, than what is the Chinese language like?



>It makes us see the big picture, Buddha=Quality, Buddha
>mind=DQ and ordinary mind=SQ. What Buddhism lacks is the
>"ordinary mind" levels where the the 4th. "ordinary mind" is the
>S/O divide. You see how the initial SOM discovery is crucial, the
>lack of what makes Buddhism impotent in making Westerners
>understand, because the latter BEGIN with the SOM premises.
>
>On the other hand the refusal to accept the SOL makes the MOQ
>equally impotent. SOM as a bad idea of an idea-intellect leads to
>the same mysticism that Buddhism looks like to us. Pirsig is of
>course the source, to avoid the SOL he invents an "Oriental
>intellect" and strives to make SOM something insignificant
>("Beware of crocodiles" and "Jahve will reward you" is SOM) that
>the MOQ is completely indifferent to. No, SOM is the highest
>STATIC level.

Buddhism looks good to me, and RMP has explained why in ZAMM and 
LILA.  These two books identify and totally discredit SOM.   The MOQ 
is not impotent, ZAMM and LILA present strong arguments, and point to 
the pre-intellect experience as proof.  Strong resistance to strong 
mental habit is understandable.


>Thanks a lot, you paint too? So does Platt. I'm just a copy-cat.
>You are American? My once great ideal was Edward Hopper, him
>with the erie streets and empty gas stations scenes.

My painting mentor is John Singer Sargent (I like Joaquin Sorolla and 
Anders Zorn too).  Recently I went to Boston and was able to visit 
Sargent paintings at the Boston Fine Arts.  I got dizzy and ecstatic 
going close, far, close, far, close, far.  I got dizzy at their 
breath-taking beauty.  I could not feel any space between the artist 
and his canvases.


Marsha