[MD] truth, again

[MarshaV]

Mark,

There is a danger in taking any metaphor or analogy too seriously, for at some point they're all to be realized as dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows, dew drops or like a lightning flash, but there is something to be said for the Wise Ones pointing.  I am grateful for their maps.  


Marsha 






On Dec 9, 2012, at 12:42 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> Yes, I too think he was a dynamic person.  He used to go into trances that used to last for hours.  like puthagorus and Parmenides he had those qualities that we call mystical, although it seems to me that such a term is typically misunderstood.
> 
> It seems to me that he was pointing to the ghostly nature of knowledge.  He could show through questioning how what a person was certain of, was uncertain.  He some of the direct apprehension of the divine, which is the same as gnosis.  This is Buddhism as well, and by mixing that with Taoism we got ch'an, which later became Zen.
> 
> Zen has nothing to do with practice as some in this forum seem to think.  It has to do with awareness.  I think the awareness of Socrates was like Zen.  I also think that such awareness is the same thing that Pirsig experienced and is trying to explain with all his examples in Lila.  It is an awareness without objects.  From this awareness, life is different.  One cannot learn about it, one must experience it, for such awareness is no thing.
> 
> MoQ can bring one there if one ignores the specifics, or Western analysis.  I think it is not important what Pirsig writes, but why he writes it.  This why would be a discussion in this forum.  The rest is like reading a map without ever planning to visit the country.
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Dec 7, 2012, at 11:41 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> Socrates, who may have been a mystic, once remarked, "What I do not know I do not think I know." To my understanding, Socrates was saying that he appeared wise because he was simply more aware of his ignorance rather than his wisdom.  His emphasis was on the negative - not this, not that - or what was missing.  I can imagine he was a quite a dynamic fellow.  
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 7, 2012, at 11:54 PM, 118 wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> That is good.  Have you found it?  Let me know when you do, I am interested how you bring it back and describe it to the rest of us.  Perhaps it is something like Gnosis.
>>> 
>>> I personally can not get there through your logic, but we each have our own way.  I have found what I found.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> On Dec 7, 2012, at 11:19 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> I see it differently.  I am in agreement with those who think the best approach to discovering the Ultimate Truth (DQ) is by discovering what is false:  not this, not that.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 6, 2012, at 1:08 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> 
>>>>> "It is the beginning, the genesis, that stands ready to be replaced.  The singular and all-important moment of creation at the beginning of the Big Bang --- the beginning of time and existence --- is poised to be swept aside.  In other words, it's the bang in the Big Bang that we, in our endless quest to understand the world, are ready to abandon.  That single moment of creation with no before has been done in by the very precision of the science that gave the idea a measure of reality."
>>>>>  (Frank, Adam, 'About Time: Cosmology and Culture at the Twilight of the Big Bang', p. xiv)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>> I am in agreement with those who think the best approach to discovering the Ultimate Truth (DQ) is by discovering what is false:  not this, not that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And another one bites the dust.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>>