[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[david buchanan]

Horse said:
... The whole point of DQ/Mysticism in the MoQ sense is that it can only be experienced and not known. Or perhaps I've got it wrong. Anyone else agree or disagree?


dmb says:
Right, DQ is very often described in terms of what it is NOT. It is not intellectually knowable, not conceptual, not verbal, not differentiated or divided. Any kind of knowledge or thought category is going to be static and conceptual. DQ is none of those things precisely because the first moment of awareness is prior to words, concepts and definitions. But it is experienced, felt and lived through and is "known" in that sense. 

I think the idea is that this continuing stimulus operates even when we're engaged with words, concepts and definitions. DQ is what guides the selection of hypothesis in science, for example. DQ is always co-operating with rational understandings, as in the case of the motorcycle mechanic. DQ is pre-intellectual, not anti-intellectual. Cultivating a sensitivity to this guiding factor should not entail a rejection of words, concepts or definitions in any way. Quite the opposite. You know, that whole lesson about Quality in the classroom writings back in Bozeman. Once the students knew that they knew what undefined Quality was, all the rules became a lot more interesting to them.