[MD] Chan and qi/eastern intellect

[dlahiri at realsysadmin.com]

Greetings Bo,

[[[But it's not Marsha but Pirsig himself who for some inexplicable
reason didn't see the enormity of his own achievement and spoke
about the MOQ as something that polluted the pure Quality.
Stemming from his Buddhist affliction and its view of an ineffable
reality that no words can speak about.  But the MOQ is a wisdom
based on the West's long sojourn at SOM that requires greater
clarity than Oriental mysticism. Quality does not correspond to
the ineffable reality but it is the DQ/SQ aggregate! OK, I have
probably said this before.]]]

Why do you consider this an affliction of any kind? Oriental Mysticism is mystical only if you observe it from outside in. If you become it, it doesn't remain a mystery any more, imho.

Intellect will only take us far enough to know what to reach out and grasp. To actually grasp this thing, one has to drop everything, including syntax and intellect that is built around it.

Of course, I'm no expert -- but I thought I would interject.
:)

Regards,

Dwai


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: skutvik at online.no
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Chan and qi/eastern intellect
> Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:42:06 +0100
> 
> 
> Marsha, Ron, Group.
> 
> On 8 Nov. Marsha said to Ron who had replied to Marsha's original question :
> 
> (Marsha 1):
> > > > Don't you think the MOQ is the finger pointing to the moon, a map,
> > > > world-view?
> 
> (Ron):
> > > I think It is the finger conceptually, it is the moon in awareness.
> 
> (Marsh 2)
> > And who has totally transformed into that awareness?  To me, the MOQ is
> > an intellectual map explaining the view, but it is not the view.
> 
> I believe Ron says: "The MOQ is a map/terrain guide when we
> intellectualize and reality itself when we intuitize (is that a word?)
> Marsha 2's question ("and who has ...) I don't fully understand,
> but she repeats the map/terrain distinction.
> 
> I agree with Ron (provided he agrees with my "translation"?)
> Marsha's finger/moon or map/terrain is similar to Ron's first
> thesis: when we intellectualize the MOQ is a (subjective) theory
> about an alleged (objective) reality.
> 
> But the MOQ is more than its intellectual level and the shift from
> intellect's SOM role to the 4th. level one is a "Copernican
> Revolution", no intermediate stages between the two roles exist.
> Does anyone know the picture of two black faces that can shift to
> a white vase? The shift is total, no blurred in-between stages.
> 
> This is a good metaphor for MOQ's the transformation from an
> ordinary map of reality to reality itself. Those who only see the
> map/reality (S/O) only see the black faces and will do so
> regardless. But those who are able to shift to the Quality=Reality
> - white vase view - will understand the new reality where the
> former SOM becomes the 4th.static level..
> 
> But it's not Marsha but Pirsig himself who for some inexplicable
> reason didn't see the enormity of his own achievement and spoke
> about the MOQ as something that polluted the pure Quality.
> Stemming from his Buddhist affliction and its view of an ineffable
> reality that no words can speak about.  But the MOQ is a wisdom
> based on the West's long sojourn at SOM that requires greater
> clarity than Oriental mysticism. Quality does not correspond to
> the ineffable reality but it is the DQ/SQ aggregate! OK, I have
> probably said this before.
> 
> Bo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/

>