Hi Marco,
> MARCO:
> Well, Andrea, maybe you are right that the difference RMP assumes between himself
>and a mystic is the attempt to analyze Quality with metaphysical tools. What I don't
>accept is that *only*. It's like to say that the *only* difference between an
>abstainer and an alcoholic is that the latter drinks whisky. We can well cut it with
>the famous razor... and the sentence sounds better: a MOQist analyzes Quality
>(Reality)... and this is not *only* at all.
Marco, I wasn't using "only" in a judgemental way. My point, again, with added
emphasis: "AS FAS AS PERSONAL ETHICS GOES, I can't remember any single passage in Lila
or ZAMM that establishes any substantial difference between a MOQist and a mystic."
Engaging in a metaphysical attempt to define Quality is *not* what makes the MOQist
willing to act, and the mystic just willing to pray, for practical issues, is it? A
mystic is not a philosopher, that's allright. It doesn't take a philosopher to be a
moral person. Of course, moral attitudes may stem from a philosophical theory, and my
point is, I
don't think the moral teachings that stem from MOQ are any much different from those
found in any Good Book. And there's a good reason for it: I think one of the goals of
RMP was, in fact, that of providing metaphysical (rational) support for the "truths"
of many mysticisms, especially from the eastern cultures. Wasn't the first book
entitled (emphasis added :)): "ZEN and the art of motorcycle maintenance"? (See below
for another facet of RMP's action...)
> MARCO: if it was true what you wrote that "he [the mystic] knows nevertheless that
>there is *no* future, ie, that the concept of future is illusory" , well, it means
>IMO that a mystic attitude will not save the children of your example. You have
>reminded me of ZAMM....
I'm sorry that I couldn't let this point through. I think your mistake is taking
*some* tenets of mystic doctrines and then guessing their consequences within an
otherwise ordinary view. As I mentioned in a previous post, you can be a mystic and
act at the same time. The only difference is the meaning you attach to this acting and
whether you see it as a goal in itself or *just* as functional to something that comes
after.
> PIRSIG HAD WRITTEN (in ZAMM):
> + But one day in the classroom the professor of philosophy was blithely expounding
>on the illusory nature of the world for what seemed the fiftieth time and Phfdrus
>raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed that the atomic bombs that had
>dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory. The professor smiled and said yes.
>That was the end of the exchange.
> Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that answer may have been correct, but
>for Phfdrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers regularly and is concerned with
>such things as mass destruction of human beings that answer was hopelessly
>inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and gave up ;.
Excellent quotation. That's the other side of the (metaphysical) coin. Just as RMP
isn't satisfied with the suppression of "spiritual", "moral", and other "immaterial"
issues in (extremized, trivialized) western thought, at the same time he is not
satisfied with the suppression of "material" concerns in (extremized, trivialized)
eastern mystics, and thus tries to bridge these two. But still we are talking about
metaphysics and not specifically morals. The professor who thought that bombs were
illusory could well think, too, that it was immoral to drop nuclear bombs on people.
If this seems
non-coherent: mystics are not rational. Mystics are NOT rational. You may not be
interested in their thought, but take it as it is; don't try to rationally derive part
of their attitude from another part, it just won't work.
> MARCO:
> Inadequate.... not wrong. YES! It's not wrong to pray for those children: it's
>inadequate. In the end, I think that probably the MOQ *seems* very mystic from our
>Western viewpoint... while probably it is very Down-to-Earth from a mystic viewpoint
>(if any).
Ah.. you said it! That's (a consequence of) what I said above.
> DAVID LIND:
> I don't think you'll find anything in mystic teachings that state that mystics
>believe what you imply.
>
> MARCO:
> The phrase "The mystic believes that "there is *no* future, ie, that the concept of
>future is illusory", was not mine, but Andrea's. As said above, I don't know a lot
>about mysticism, but I do believe that if you want to save the children (Andrea's
>example) you can't go on thinking that future (as well as the past, read the ZAMM
>quotes I offered) is illusory...
I don't share your belief. I think I tried to explain it in my previous post as well
as this one.
> I think the priests who are in Africa to help people must be a bit less mystic than
>the ones living in a monastery. Then, of course, I don't blame mystics. It's not
>their fault if people die for hunger, but also it's not mysticism that cures hunger.
Neither *mysticism* nor *metaphysics* (nor science, for that matter) save children.
It's the behavior of people who believe in them that may help save them. BTW, you are
mistakenly ascribing absence of behavior to mystics, again, or restricting their
behavior to something (you deem) impractical, such as praying. As David suggests, I
don't think you'll find many mystic teachings that imply any of these.
So much for the mystics, I guess. Side notes have the bad attitude of growing to fill
up threads, but I think now we return this thread to Thracian Bard; that is, give up
or move elsewhere :)
Andrea
--
Andrea Sosio
RIM/PSPM/PPITMN
Tel. (8)9006
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
