[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[Platt Holden]

Hi Horse,

Like many other things, we have a difference of opinion on what it means "to
know." So I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
Platt

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

> Hi Platt
>
>
> On 12/12/2010 21:25, Platt Holden wrote:
>
>> Hi Horse,
>>
>> Our difference seems to be a difference in the meaning of "knowledge" and
>> "understanding."
>>
>
> Both are intellectual patterns (words) which refer to other intellectual
> patterns (static reality) as opposed to pre-conceptual and pre-intellectual
> experience (mystic reality).
> Knowledge and understanding are post-experiential and stem from prior
> experience. To confuse the pre-conceptual experience of mystic reality with
> the post-experience concepts of knowledge and understanding is where the
> problem lies.
>
>
>  You appear to consider them only pointing to static intellectual patterns
>> of value.
>>
>
> Not necessarily. The words we use, the analogies, metaphors etc. we employ
> may also point to the mystic reality, but they are still post-experience.
> Knowledge/understanding of or about experience are still static patterns.
> They are pointers to something and not the !?*^*(#_#)*^*?!  that is being
> pointed to. By using the terms knowledge and understanding when referring to
> mystic reality you are confusing the two. To even use the term 'mystic
> reality' is to pattern what is unpatterned and free of concepts or
> knowledge!
> Mystic reality (DQ) has no concepts or patterns - it is pure, undivided and
> immediate value/experience. As soon as you start applying concepts or words
> you have left this reality behind.
>
>
>  I see them as also pointing to aesthetic experience prior to the formation
>> of the static patterns of value, that is, knowledge of Dynamic value before
>> descriptive words.
>>
>
> Here again is the misunderstanding. Unpatterned, immediate experience has
> no analogues or concepts. These always occur after the reality. Experience
> that can be known, expressed or understood is not the actual experience of
> mystic reality.
>
>
>  You described this Dynamic value below in referring to it is as a wordless
>> state of being
>> "engrossed" in pure experience before being dropped "back into the static
>> world" of words and analogies.
>>
>
> Yes. I have also said that I'm off somewhere else. In a trance-like state.
> Gone! Away with the fairies. Spaced out. Tranced. I think the term used in
> Zen-Buddhism is mu-shin or no mind.
>
>
>  I consider this "engrossment" to be direct aesthetic knowledge of pure
>> reality.
>>
>
> Yes. I agree. And it is not as difficult to achieve as some would have you
> believe. One way is to close your eyes, sit back and drift off.
>
>
>  Or, as Huang Po put it: Here it is -- right now. Start thinking about it
>> and you miss it."  This knowledge "without conceptual distinctions" is
>> aesthetic rather than intellectual, cited by Northrop and implicit when you
>> are musically "in the zone."
>>
>
> But it is not knowledge or knowing - these come after the experience. What
> you are trying to do is to dump the state of knowing and just experience.
> The moment is not about knowing but experiencing, which is why there are no
> conceptual distinctions such as knowing/not knowing. You just are. You are
> here, in the moment.
> All this talk about knowing and understanding is peripheral to pure
> experience and one of the main reasons why I rarely talk about it - there's
> no point. It just confuses.
>
> Cheers Platt
>
>
>
> Horse
>
>
> --
>
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>