[MD] Trance state

[MarshaV]

At 02:16 PM 11/16/2008, you wrote:
>On Sunday 16 November 2008 12:14 AM Ham writes to Andre and Platt:
>
><snip>
>
>[Ham]
>Yes, but behavioral conditioning of attitudes, phobias, and the like seems
>more allied to Eastern mysticism than neuroscience or Western philosophy.
>Which brings me to Pirsig's dismissal of metaphysics on the ground that it
>is "too mystical". Platt quoted this familiar passage from LILA:
>
>[Platt]
>"The first are the philosophers of science, most particularly the group
>known as logical positivists, who say that only the natural sciences can
>legitimately investigate the nature of reality, and that metaphysics is
>simply a collection of unprovable assertions that are unnecessary to the
>scientific observation of reality.  For a true understanding of reality,
>metaphysics is too 'mystical.'"
>
>[Ham]
>Actually that's a gross distortion of what classical metaphysics is -- all
>the worse for a philosopher seeking to advance a Metaphysics of Quality.
>Compare this description of metaphysics from answers.com:
>
>[answers.com]
>"Branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate structure and constitution
>of reality - i.e., of that which is real, insofar as it is real. The term,
>which means literally 'what comes after physics,' was used to refer to the
>treatise by Aristotle on what he himself called 'first philosophy.' In the
>history of Western philosophy, metaphysics has been understood in various
>ways: as an inquiry into what basic categories of things there are (e.g.,
>the mental and the physical); as the study of reality, as opposed to
>appearance; as the study of the world as a whole; and as a theory of first
>principles."
>
>[Ham]
>I ask you, what is "mystical" about this approach to understanding?  Just
>because metaphysics is not Science doesn't make it mystical.  Nor is
>metaphysics "anti-Science".  Indeed, we got to Science along the path of
>logic and intuitive reasoning laid out by Aristotle.  This has been a sore
>point with me since I started reading Pirsig. Platt's point that the MoQ
>"says that reality is prior to conception and is therefore immediate,
>intuitive, undeliberate and involuntary" is well taken. What Pirsig calls
>"pre-intellectual experience" (but is really
>value-sensibility) is not a trance state, not "altered consciousness", not
>mystical contemplation.  It is man's attempt to apply intellect and logic to
>a fundamental understanding of reality -- in this instance, based on the
>values that drive human behavior.
>
>Thanks for your analysis of the SOM formulation as related to the NLP
>concept.
>
>Best regards,
>Ham
>
>
>Hi Ham, Platt, and all,
>
>[Joe]
>Aristotle divided thought into various categories, one of them being
>Metaphysics. answers.comŠŠŠŠ..metaphysics has been understood in various
>ways: as an inquiry into what basic categories of things there are (e.g.,
>mental and physical); etc.
>
>[Joe]
>IMO Pirsig eliminated the ³mental² category by substituting four levels of
>evolution in the ³physical² category which are ³mystically² perceived.
>³Mystically² is an analogy for the way we perceive different levels of
>existence.  ³Conscious² is another analogy for ³mystically².  I am conscious
>in earth, water, air, fire, or inorganic, organic, social, intellectual
>realities.  Conscious is contrasted to Mechanical, not as ³mental to
>physical² but as undefined (mystical) to defined knowledge.
>
>Aristotle's perception of the four transcendentals: thing (res), one (unum),
>true (verum), good (bonum) was a mystical perception.
>
>
>Joe






Greetings Joe,

Isn't consciousness a mental state?

Marsha









>On 11/16/08 12:14 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but behavioral conditioning of attitudes, phobias, and the like seems
> > more allied to Eastern mysticism than neuroscience or Western philosophy.
> > Which brings me to Pirsig's dismissal of metaphysics on the ground that it
> > is "too mystical".  Platt quoted this familiar passage from LILA:
> >
> > "The first are the philosophers of science, most particularly the group
> > known as logical positivists, who say that only the natural sciences can
> > legitimately investigate the nature of reality, and that metaphysics is
> > simply a collection of unprovable assertions that are unnecessary to the
> > scientific observation of reality.  For a true understanding of reality,
> > metaphysics is too 'mystical.'"
> >
> > Actually that's a gross distortion of what classical metaphysics is -- all
> > the worse for a philosopher seeking to advance a Metaphysics of Quality.
> > Compare this description of metaphysics from answers.com:
> >
> > "Branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate structure and constitution
> > of reality - i.e., of that which is real, insofar as it is real. The term,
> > which means literally 'what comes after physics,' was used to refer to the
> > treatise by Aristotle on what he himself called 'first philosophy.' In the
> > history of Western philosophy, metaphysics has been understood in various
> > ways: as an inquiry into what basic categories of things there are (e.g.,
> > the mental and the physical); as the study of reality, as opposed to
> > appearance; as the study of the world as a whole; and as a theory of first
> > principles."
> >
> > I ask you, what is "mystical" about this approach to understanding?  Just
> > because metaphysics is not Science doesn't make it mystical.  Nor is
> > metaphysics "anti-Science".  Indeed, we got to Science along the path of
> > logic and intuitive reasoning laid out by Aristotle.  This has been a sore
> > point with me since I started reading Pirsig.
> > Platt's point that the MoQ "says that reality is prior to conception and is
> > therefore immediate, intuitive, undeliberate 
> and involuntary" is well taken.
> > What Pirsig calls "pre-intellectual experience" (but is really
> > value-sensibility) is not a trance state, not "altered consciousness", not
> > mystical contemplation.  It is man's attempt 
> to apply intellect and logic to
> > a fundamental understanding of reality -- in this instance, based on the
> > values that drive human behavior.
> >
> > Thanks for your analysis of the SOM formulation as related to the NLP
> > concept.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ham
>
>
>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/

.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in 
which each is a reflection of all the others in a 
fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.