Marsha said: I've been thinking about what Krimel wrote here. I like to play this game. I thought this description really quite beautiful. It can't be taken seriously though, it is play, it is Lila. But this game also seems contrary to all the literature on the Tao, Buddhism,etc. Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems silly. How can anything be excluded? Anybody have any thoughts?
Dan replied: I agree it's intellectually appealing to learn new ideas and to fill our days chasing empty concepts. I think the MOQ says that that takes us away from Dynamic Quality, however. It doesn't bring us closer. Perhaps that is what the literature on the Tao and Buddhism is telling you. dmb says: You've both raise a good point about what the literature says and I don't disagree but there is also a mode of thought, if you will, that isn't so empty of static. Thinking can be a creative, dynamic, aesthetic experience too. Maybe that's a paradox but I think its just that static thinking is qualitatively different than dynamic thinking. So I tend to sympathize with Krimel Case's case. I wouldn't put things quite the way he did, but I've been moved to tears, hysterical laughter and everything in between by nothing more than thoughts. I love it and it seems like the right thing to do. I don't know, maybe its just my least destructive vice. _________________________________________________________________ The best games are on Xbox 360. Click here for a special offer on an Xbox 360 Console. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/wheretobuy/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
