Hi Platt, Roger, Wim.
Thanks, Platt, for the Benoit information. I had not come across this
before, and it is intriguing. It seems like a shortcut to experiencing what
Almaas calls the void. He wrote a book with that title. Maybe in another
post we can talk more about the terror of being unsupported.
It seems to me that what we are exploring is the possibility of a level
above that of the intellect, to put it in Pirsig's terms. I think this is
one of Bo's ideas too. I noted your cautious "if indeed such a realm
exists". This is also my stance.
Having the typical INTP (Enneagram type 5) personality, I am finding the
possibility of exploring a supra-intellectual knowing very challenging. At
my second Diamond approach workshop in Sydney I had been expecting an
intelligible 'explanation' of what is meant by spirit, and got very uptight
when this did not occur. In fact, by the last day I was quite annoyed with
the mumbo-jumbo that was going on, and decided I would not return. I was
rather dejected that all the time and expense I had already invested was to
end like this. That night I read one of Almaas' books I had with me, then
the next morning I walked around Sydney, visited some galleries where I had
work, and just strolled around the city. Normally I don't enjoy crowds, or
cities, all that much, and yet for several hours I was enjoying this
experience, sort of on a high, yet that gives an inaccurate impression. Just
more aware and more open to what I met, pehaps. Words are very inadequate
here. However it was enough to convince me that something had indeed changed
for me, and to continue exploring. Of course there are many logical
explanations that could perhaps account for this, but it seemed to me that
the crisis of not getting an intellectual account of meaning threw me into a
deeper realm of some sort. One I enjoyed.
Regarding Roger's recent suggestion, taken from Wilber, that "everybody is
right", I have a few thoughts on this too.
At one level this seems quite obvious. Each person is at the point where
their previous growth and experiences has brought them. If quality acts as a
'lure' (a term I have borrowed from the process theologians who were greatly
influenced by Whitehead, and who spoke of the "lure of God"), then the issue
is whether that lure is towards a common appreciation of quality, (hence a
teleology), or does quality reside in the eye of the observer, so that each
of us experiences a unique form of quality. (I'm very aware of how
inadequate language is here, making quality sound like a commodity. However,
bear with me, and accept that I am merely pointing to something other, not
defining it.)
My own guess is that ultimate quality is the same for everyone, but that at
different points along the way the perceptions we have of quality are quite
varied, and in a sense are responsive to our current level of development. A
rough parallel would be with studying a discipline such as mathematics. The
quality to be had through the study of calculus is not available until I
have done the work needed to grasp what the calculus is about. Meanwhile,
those mathematicians who are debating quantum effects are simply outside my
ken. So any complete understanding of quality would need to take into
account the level of development of the person experiencing that quality.
Hence the lure. Quality calls me to experience what is now possible given my
previous development and education. If I imagine that what calls me is the
ultimate, then I will be unable to appreciate how someone else seems called
by what seems a different value. In this sense quality can be seen as
multifaceted. My immediate needs are met through my encounter with another
dimension of quality.
(When my essay comes out you can check my perception that quality emerges in
parallel with life, and I am here extending that argument to say that
quality 'evolves' in response to needs. But by needs I do not mean just food
and shelter, and so on, but higher level needs such as meaning. The question
of whether there is a super-quality that is the ultimate goal of our quest
is an open one, and quite frankly can be an impediment to dealing with my
immediate isssues. Even if someone could describe it to me, it would mean
nothing. I have to do the work to find it through my own experience.)
One of the tragedies of life is finding how few people are active explorers
of meaning, and then how infinitely small is the number of those whose
search is near enough to your own level that you can communicate with them.
At its best this communication, though couched in words, is able to bring
the excitement of a new vista, a new perspective on quality. There is no
doubt reading Pirsig did this for me, however much I quibble with many of
his ideas. I am currently, against the odds, I suspect, experiencing
something of this in this forum. Many thanks.
John B
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
