Hello everyone
>
>To Joel and The MD
>From Rog
>
>*****DIALOGUE*****
>
>JOEL WROTE:
>The solution? Ironically it goes along with this month's theme (I believe)
>in the moderated list: "The crux of this crisis involves coming to the
>point of realizing, 'I am not my point of view.' I have a point of view,
>but that is not what I am."
Hi Joel
Lila doesn't have Quality. Quality has Lila. So it would seem the MOQ would
say I do not have a point of view; the point of view has me. A point of view
is an evolutionary pattern of value and as such, experienced. If we are not
our experience, then what are we?
>
>
>ROG RESPONDS:
>Thank you for the refreshing post on dialogue. When I joined here almost 3
>years ago, I was confident that the members wouldn't just know the MOQ, but
>that they would LIVE the MOQ. I assumed I would find people at one with
>themselves and their environment, dedicated to dynamic intellectual
>exchange
>and above the foolish social posturing prevalent in other web groups. I was
>sure I would find a forum of people that understand the dynamics between a
>point of view and their "self".
Hi Roger
I was fairly new to the net when I discovered the discussion group and
really had no idea what to expect. I still don't. I feel very fortunate to
have the opportunity to be part of this though. I have read so many
thoughtful opinions, many of which seem quite contrary to my own, and seen
the shadow of the negative face of Quality emerge time and again during
heated debates. I am no exception. But that is what being human is all
about. It is all a kind of "controlled folly" and it seems to me that those
who see that and accept it as part of our nature have more tolerance for an
opposing point of view. At times it's hard to see though.
I would like to thank Diana for all her hard work and efforts over the
years. She has started something wonderful.
>
>Interestingly, I would add a spin to your quote that another way to look at
>it is that we can indeed choose to look at our self and our opinion as
>intermixed (after all, what is the self other than collections of patterns
>of
>value). However, here the MOQ solution would be to establish your views
>based on intellectual values (truth, consistency, clarity, etc), and even
>more so on dynamic versatility. If you wish to view yourself as your
>ideas,
>then at least be as dynamic as possible. Be wary of static traps and old
>worn out patterns.
>
>Seek not that which is comfortable, but that which is best, and be aware
>that
>that which is best is itself dynamic.
I tend to agree with you Roger. Still, my old worn out easy chair feels
mighty fine after a Dynamic day. That's life.
>
>*****DEPARTURE*****
>
>IMO those that left did so due to seriously damaged karma. In some cases
>the
>karma was bad for years. I applaud their decision, and encourage them to
>come
>back when or if the time is right. Good dialogue is of course the reward.
Perhaps if we can agree on what we mean by karma to begin with, we can begin
to see what Robert Pirsig means by calling karma "evolutionary garbage."
"As a logical principle, it [karma] stands for the strict causal necessity
between actions and their effects; as a metaphysical principle, it espouses
the immortality of the soul; and as a moral one, it explains the diversity
in the destiny of men regarding their births and deaths." (Upanishadic
Challenge to Science, R.K. Garg, 1978)
However, it seems the sages agree the most important consequence of karma is
that through the actions of consciousness a living being can reverse the
process of creation, of "original sin." We've all been taught the difference
between good and bad. Love is good; hate is bad. But it seems to me karma is
neither and both simultaneously. Karma is evolutionary garbage. Karma is
love and karma is ruthless exploitation.
"Need anyone tell us what is good, Phaedrus?" By following what has been
called "the hidden footprint of unity" (Augustine) we merge with the one
reality from which we spring. Robert Pirsig calls that one reality Quality
and suffering is its negative face. In this context, it would seem to me
that karma cannot be damaged nor can it be named good or bad in itself;
rather it is through our actions of self-sacrifice--the practicing of
austerities--that the many meanings of karmic relationships become clear and
the path we walk illuminated.
On the other hand, only those who have reconciled, within themselves, the
inability of our consciousness to clearly differentiate between good and
evil action, can truly hope to follow the hidden footprint. For the
differentiation between good and evil lies within our own minds. We are
locked into it. Buddha said, in the sky there is no east and west. Only by
right action can we hope to seek Quality. And no one need tell us what those
right actions are any more than a spider needs to be taught to weave its
web.
I look forward to reading the thoughts of others on this subject.
>
>But, as usual, I could be wrong
And you could be right!
Thank you for your stimulating thoughts everyone.
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
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
