[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[118]

Hi Horse,

What I am proposing is that the mystical reality and the spiritual
reality are the same thing.  They are not part of our intellectual
symbol manipulations per se, but have enormous sway over them.
Spiritual reality is neither conceptual nor patterned.  It happens in
the spirit world if you will.

As I have said before, my understanding of Zen (which I got from
priests) is that one has to balance the spiritual with the physical.
This would be balancing SQ with DQ to use MOQ parlance.  We do not
understand the spiritual, but know it is there, in the same way we
know dynamic quality is present.  Once we recognize that they are the
same thing, it makes everything clearer, and allows us to bridge to
other esoteric philosophies.  There has been a lot of work done on
dynamic quality (if you will) in other disciplines.  There is no
reason to reinvent the wheel, just modernize it.

Mark

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
> Hi Mark
>
> So what's the difference between mystical reality and spiritual reality and
> how does it solve the problem that - as some see it - that in Pirsigs MoQ
> mystical reality is neither conceptual, nor patterned.
>
> Horse
>
> On 13/12/2010 20:03, 118 wrote:
>>
>> Hi Platt, Horse,
>>
>> I solve this problem by equating the mystical reality with the spiritual
>> reality.  In this way, MOQ can be bridged to many other philosophies.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Platt
>>>
>>> This worries me in that a simple phrase/verb such as "to know" should
>>> cause a problem in relation to what you have called the 'real' world of
>>> mystic reality. It makes me think that what you have said has no bearing on
>>> what you believe, in the sense that mystic reality is devoid of concepts and
>>> knowing is the creation of concepts.
>>> Knowledge of, knowledge about or knowledge that etc. X refers to
>>> something that can be known. 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?
>>>
>>> Horse
>>>
>>> On 13/12/2010 17:06, Platt Holden wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
> --
>
> "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
>