[MD] Buddhism's s/o

[Platt Holden]

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>wrote:

> Platt to Andre:
>
>
> Can you give us some examples of "spiritual rationality?" Sounds
> suspiciously like theology. But, of course, your adamant denial of
> anything approaching theism precludes that avenue.
>
> Andre:
> Hi Platt, I think you are a little unfair and unreasonable now. The phrase
> 'spiritual rationality' comes from Pirsig.


[Platt]
Where did Pirsig say that? Specific reference please. He indicated  just the
opposite in Annotations: "When you here the words 'spirit' and 'faith'
always look for a traditional religionist trying to sneak his goods in the
back door. Like the positivists, the MOQ drops spirit and faith cold."

By this I think he indicated that we, as inorganic,organic, social and
> intellectual patterns of value should attune ourselves and stay open to the
> code of art...and remain on our wits (pardon the expression). It includes
> our incorporating of 'religious' i.e direct experience, so called
> 'spiritual' insights and understandings.
>
> Come on Platt, I have only criticized (strongly I admit)religion, the
> static representation of... and, more specifically, the confusion of
> religious rituals as being the rituals being the experience itself and not
> that to which they point/ reveal.
>
> Phaedrus asking about the wafer... you mean symbolically? No it really IS
> the body of Christ.
>
> The MOQ accepts religious experience, and by that it means dynamic
> experience... not the static representations of it. This is confusing DQ
> with SQ.
>
> Platt:
>
>  While you're at it, could you explain what "spirit" means in your world?
>
> Andre:
> I think that Pirsig meant the 'intuitive', the aesthetic, the undivided
> aesthetic experience needing its fullest expression in static patterns of
> value.
>
> [Platt}
Except for using the word "spirit" maybe we agree. I've been pounding about
the centrality of beauty to MOQ understanding since the beginning.

 Platt:

> P.S. Of course, no one here is obligated to answer anyone's questions.
> We're not in school, much to the frustration of some who think of
> themselves as authority figures.
>
> Andre:
> You are right Platt. No one needs to answer anyone. And we are not in
> school. We are here on a discuss forum... I would have hoped to perhaps
> learn from one another and build on each others insights and understandings.
> If you, however, want to post posts without expecting a response (like
> Marsha) why bother in the first place? Indeed, stay home, stay in you room,
> stay in bed, wish yourself unborn, a-social, un-human...a lonely, isolated
> island. Send the posts to yourself. Objectify your responses to
> yourself...learn something for yourself, keep yourself intact, keep your
> static patterns going...do what is reasonable and expected. Objectify
> yourself.


[Platt]
>From one of my favorite teachers: "You do not need to leave your room.
Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait. Do
not even wait, be quiet still and solitary. The world will freely offer
itself to you to be unmasked. It has no choice. It roll in ecstasy at your
feet." -- Franz Kafka


>
>
>
>