[MD] Another parallel

[John Carl]

Dan,
I guess I'm ready to respond to this now.  I've been thinking a lot through
since you wrote it...


On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Hi John
>
> In Steve Hagen's book Buddhism Plain and Simple he offers a picture of
> "something" and instructs the reader to keep looking at the picture until
> they "see" what it is. His point: you cannot use reason; either you see it
> or you don't. And once you see it, there is no doubt about it. You "know"
> beyond a shadow of reason what it is you're looking at.



My own pre-intellectualization plays with this differently.  We humans
possess two differing  intellection processes - eyes and ears- and they
correspond to two basic conceptualization systems- images and words.

With images, we associate reality and with words we associate and analyze
truth.   Both make up our humanity.  Both realms are fairly distinct.
 Reason is of the realm of the word, and thus hasn't much to do with images
in my game.



> I think that is analogous to what Robert Pirsig is saying. When we're
> confronted with raw unfiltered direct experience we tend to rationalize it
> away.


Sometimes Robert Pirsig sounds like a guy who just hates to be wrong so
much, that he turns his intellect against the fallibility of his own
intellect.  We're supposed to rationalize raw unfiltered direct experience
away.  That's the fun of it, making dynamic choice instead of just letting
the cosmos have its way with us and pour any old input into our
receptacles.

Reason is a static defense mechanism that becomes our central reality. The
> central reality of the MOQ, though, is not reason.
>

So you think we're pursuing an unreasonable metaphysic?  I am starting to
wonder.   What if I claim rather for myself that reason is my dynamic
intellectual defense mechanism that I use to understand my central reality?
 My central reality is beyond reason, of course, or I would be the owner of
a static intellect.   Which I think the technical definition of a completely
static intellect is "dead".

Iconoclastically,

John




>
> 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/
>