>> I think, as I said earlier, that it's a matter of perspective.
>> Fundamentally, we cannot define the universe. We always try and always get
>> it wrong. But that is fundamentally. There are two perspectives. From the
>> perspective of the Mystic, we cannot define anything. From the perspective
>> of sq; everything is a definition. Neither one nor the other is 'right'.
>> This is the power of the dichotomy of the MOQ. It says that, in the end, the
>> Mystics are right. But we can't avoid this defining so we should define
>> things as best we can.
> This is good, we can get back to what MoQ has to say about mysticism,
> and how we can form a bridge, and I agree with what you say. Of
> course Marsha is a mystic as are we all. The point is to recognize
> that and embrace it.
This is exactly my point. The MOQ disagrees with Mysticism on only one thing and you've hit the nail on head. True Mystics would deny ever being such. The MOQ only differs from this in that it actually claims to be Mysticism. It recognises that these words which we use are still important - so we should get them as best we can as I had said..
> I am not diminshing or changing the meaning of
> mysticism here, as I understand it (intellectually and dynamically).
> We cannot say that mysticism and the intellect are mutually exclusive
> based on intellectual contemplation. As we form the intellect in real
> time, that is a mystical experience.
We need to be careful here. There's two perspectives on this. I mean, I agree. It's quality to say that sq comes from DQ. But from the perspective of static quality, these distinctions are still important and sq and DQ are two very distinct and different things.
> I often say (for the sake of argument) that much of our day exists
> within the mystical. That is, we operate as if Unity exists. Our
> bodies are one with everythinng else, for how could they not be. Our
> chemistry is constantly being rejuvenated as a tornado is always
> losing and grabbing air. There is no distinct demarkation between a
> tornado and air, except for energy (which is invisible).
> Our intellect gives us the perception that we are separate from that
> which lies outside. This is the basis for the logic behind soul, if
> one believes in such a thing. However, this term is overworn and has
> a despicable history in the Modern world. So I will not subscribe to
> that word except in passing to say that its orignial intent is much
> different from how the church presents it. Instead I will point to
> what we call "Self". Of course the Self cannot be found through the
> intellect, just as DQ cannot be found through sq. This does not mean
> that it doesn't exist (double negative), just like we assume DQ
> exists. Both are convenient terms to progress a conversation. The
> Self exists as much as a tornado does. And a tornado is very real.
> However, what is a tornado without the air? It is obviously more than
> the material no matter how much we seek to embrace it through
Yeap. Agreed Mark.
> What we do with the intellect is create a sense of awareness and
> belonging. This involves connecting dots as we do with constellations
> and is very important. Again, this does not mean that what we create
> is a fabrication any more than saying a song is a fabrication and
> therefore not real. The development of sq is an expression of the
> human variety, like a flower is expressed by a tree. This intellect
> gives us a sense of being part of, but at the same time it gives us an
> existential sense of estrangement. It is a fine balance, and we tend
> towards the notion of separateness more and more. The current
> achievement of adulthood is based around being separate. Our
> buildings are not considered "natural", but of course they are
> nonetheless. In short, we loose touch with our mystical nature. But,
> listen to your heart beat, and ask whether that is separate from you
> or if it is you. Our intellect certainly does not have any control
> over such a thing. I believe it is important not to distance
> mysticism as if it were a foreign phenomenon. It requires nurturing.
> In my opinion, MoQ seeks to reestablish the mystical awareness that we
> have. That is, it could provide an inroad into a rebalancing act. In
> Zen, the balance between physical maturity and "sense" maturity is
> encouraged. We tend to increase first with the physical, and it is
> usually not until later in life that we seek the other side. It would
> appear that some never do, and never grow up. Through the description
> of the distinction between sq and DQ, MoQ may seek just the same thing
> (IMO). It is a sense of caring, and nurturing of the human spirit
> (whatever that may mean to you). And so, we have intellectual
> knowledge on one side, and mystical awareness on the other. We are
> all capable of both in unison, but one cannot be "grasped" by the
> other. MoQ provides a dynamic and somewhat logical way to achieve
> this. In this sense, it is no different from Buddhism in its initial
> goal. The difference with Buddhism is the need to "escape". I
> personally do not see anywhere to escape to, and why would I want to.
Yes. We should come back to these static patterns and make them better. Who wouldn't like that?
> The conservation of mass and energy, and their constant
> interelationship through persiting forces suggests that our personal
> awareness cannot be lost. It can be seen as the apparition of a
> tornado. When a tornado goes away, where does it go? A good question
> to ponder is whether each time a tornado appears it is the same one,
> or a different one. Hard to tell, since what we see is the
> everchanging air. Perhaps the tornado feels as if it were different
> since all it has is the material to base this on. However, we do
> claim that a waterfall is persistent even if there are times when it
> is dry. It is still the same waterfall.
I think looking at something and wondering whether it is the 'same' thing in this way is a fools errand. Ultimately, we know there is no distinction between anything. Our mind makes these distinctions and they are important as you say..
> I have done some reading on the fundamental nature of mysticism as
> described through the intellect, which is of course just a sign post
> providing direction. I also have some personal experiences of what
> could be termed dissociation. But, I am not a Mystic as the term is
> currently being used. I am no Shaman or Guru. That was more for me,
> since I have to keep reminding myself of that or else my ego will take
> over. I am "nothing much".
> I am happy if there is any disagreement here. For that is a spice of life.