[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[Horse]

Hi Mark


On 14/12/2010 00:00, 118 wrote:
> Hi Horse,
>
> What I am proposing is that the mystical reality and the spiritual reality are the same thing.

So if mystical reality and spiritual reality are the same thing what are 
the advantages of changing the label?

> They are not part of our intellectual symbol manipulations per se, but have enormous sway over them.

If we assume that intellect/knowing/knowledge etc. are after the 
experience of DQ then it's correct that DQ has an influence over how 
intellect makes sense of those experiences.

> Spiritual reality is neither conceptual nor patterned.  It happens in the spirit world if you will.

Well, that's a problem right there. DQ is not 'something happening' or 
part of anything as such. Spirit is a concept, so to bring in concepts 
of or concepts about, w.r.t. what is non-conceptual and experiential, 
immediately moves the whole thing back to static reality!

> 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 looks more like balancing the mental with the physical. Balancing 
what is non-conceptual with what is conceptual is a different matter and 
I can't see how it can be done. If concepts don't apply then how do we 
apply them to comparison with concepts? That's what I understand by 
balancing anyway.

> This would be balancing SQ with DQ to use MOQ parlance.

See above.

> We do not understand the spiritual, but know it is there, in the same way we know dynamic quality is present.

Aren't they one and the same? I thought DQ, Mystic Reality and Spiritual 
reality were labels for the same thing.

> Once we recognize that they are the same thing, it makes everything clearer, and allows us to bridge to other esoteric philosophies.

I'm still not sure how labelling DQ as Spiritual reality does this or 
how it makes it clearer. Applying more concepts to what is 
non-conceptual seems a retrograde step.

> 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.

Wouldn't it be better to try and include those philosophies under the 
umbrella of the MoQ instead, which also contains other benefits such as 
how the non-conceptual (spiritual) relates to the static reality of the 
MoQ and the evolutionary structure that it describes.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not just criticising for the sake of it. 
Just trying to see what extra benefits can be gained. What you're saying 
is interesting - I'm just not seeing how it fits with the MoQ as Pirsig 
proposed it.

Cheers

Horse

> 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
>>

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa