Referent

Mr. Scott,

I hope this isn't too confusing:  I am thinking as I write. I know I sound darn silly and egoistic, but I'm just figuring this out conciously for the first time, and plus I don't think anyone can sound adequately humble when they're talking about enlightenment.  I also assume everything I say you've heard before and better said, (see, I learn from my mistakes) but I'll continue for my own sake.  Getting away from that self-awareness that Emerson labeled the root of all barriers to truth...

I finished the book and I believe I understand how my idea (that intuition is a natural substitute for education although both travel towards enlightenment) and yours (that enlightenment is a byproduct of of logic and is neither true nor logic's end) fit together.  You might have made that connection because I mentioned those byproducts of... institutional logic? in how I introduced my idea.  They hold water but not truth.  But it's not just that, our ideas are related because they're reaching towards the same thing.

Okay so they're connected now.  I'm going to give you what I gave a friend who I was trying to keep from cutting herself. 

Now the conversation surrounding the drawing of this diagram isn't very important to our current discussion, but what is important is that I'm talking about enlightenment.  Saying that in that particular instance would have ruined the situation (saying "understanding the world" almost did). 

The conversation I had with my friend is important because she accused me of living in my head, and I know that's a dangerous place to be.  So I realized that we both needed new ways of solving the big problem.  This is why I am thinking about intuition. 

I recognize that this destination of enlightenment takes quite a bit of faith to believe in, which I feel isn't your strong suit.  Is your idea a perpendicular wall in my diagram?  One of Pirsig's gumption traps?  I don't know it enough to try thinking that one through.  And I know you don't think of it that way, of course, but that's where you fit in on my diagram. 

Of course I am not proposing a solution,  I know I will be thinking about this until I am a nun and afterwards even, but how do I know that?  Intuition.  Which is where the book is going.  Which is why the book is important to the both of us. 

Mr. Scott, yesterday you were speaking yourself and you sounded sincere for the first time in this whole conversation about enlightenment.  You weren't not playing the devil's advocate, I don't think.  Scratch that actually. (Although it is true.  I find you interesting and very likeable all of the time, but especially when I hear yourself in your voice) But forget about that. 

The entire time I was talking with my friend I knew that our words were an important reference point for future thought and just growing up.  I intuitively know this dialogue is important to my personal development.  Let's continue.  This was a very roundabout way of asking:  can you explain what you mean?