BTW folks ... (DMB & Marsha & David M mentioned) The points I was making (trying to make several times) earlier this morning were captured exactly in this DMB / Marsha exchange from last week ...
Marsha said: ...This is why it seems so silly to be battling over the exact definition of the Social Level versus the Intellectual Level, or the individual versus the collective. It's the clinging to the static patterns that is the cause of suffering. When one begins to see what those patterns are, and what they are not, they begin to die and there is a whole new perspective available. To dismiss or undervalue the Eastern perpective and/or Buddhist philosophy is missing something very valuable. dmb says: I think that definitions are essential when one is doing metaphysics and that the differences between social and intellectual values can be discussed in conventional terms, not least of all because the differences themselves are conventional. What you say here seems true from a mystic's perspective, but the conflicts between social and intellectual values are legal, political, sociological, historical and military conflicts. Or, to put it another way, the distinctions between the third and fourth levels of static patterns are very different from the distinctions between static quality and dynamic quality. If there is a way to discuss the social/intellectual conflict from a mystical perspective, I sure would like to hear about it. Ian responds DMB has the advantage that he has moved on to a level where he can see that talking in SOMist (conventional) terms about the (largely historical, political etc ...) levels is exactly that, just a matter of convention, and not allow it to confuse his thinking about the MoQ iself. Marsha has moved on (if she was ever stuck) to a point where she doesn't even want to have the "conventional" discussion. That doesn't mean the rest of us can't see it. It just means we (jointly) haven't found a way to exchange views (using these SOMist conventions) that doesn't confuse what we actually express about the MoQ "subject" under discussion. We all need to "discount" the SOMist expression of the MoQish subject matter of our discourse (or find a better common language - email is deadly at the best of times.) (BTW - David M's point about internal / external views is relevant to this too - and of course one of the reasons the individual / social confusion keeps arising when we are talking - SOMistically - about intellectual / social distinctions.) Ian On 7/18/08, david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Marsha said: > ...This is why it seems so silly to be battling over the exact definition of > the Social Level versus the Intellectual Level, or the individual versus the > collective. It's the clinging to the static patterns that is the cause of > suffering. When one begins to see what those patterns are, and what they are > not, they begin to die and there is a whole new perspective available. To > dismiss or undervalue the Eastern perpective and/or Buddhist philosophy is > missing something very valuable. > > dmb says: > I think that definitions are essential when one is doing metaphysics and that > the differences between social and intellectual values can be discussed in > conventional terms, not least of all because the differences themselves are > conventional. What you say here seems true from a mystic's perspective, but > the conflicts between social and intellectual values are legal, political, > sociological, historical and military conflicts. Or, to put it another way, > the distinctions between the third and fourth levels of static patterns are > very different from the distinctions between static quality and dynamic > quality. If there is a way to discuss the social/intellectual conflict from a > mystical perspective, I sure would like to hear about it. > > This reminds me of the story Pirsig tells about the Indian teacher who > claimed the bombing of Hiroshima was just an illusion. At the time, the > teacher's answer only angered Pirsig at the time. Even later, when he > understood things better, he still complained that the teacher should have > said he was making that statement from a non-conventional perspective. We've > all seen what that particular mushroom cloud accomplished, understand > something about the context in which it appeared and we all know that > thousands and thousand of these bombs are just waiting for the day. On some > level, this is all quite real and worth discussing, no? I think that's why > Pirsig explains the conflict between the top two levels in political and > historical terms. > > Drawing a line between the conventional and mystical ways of seeing serves to > put these debates in perspective, but I don't think one precludes the other. > 360 degrees and all that. You know, cause you're a net of jewels. > > Thanks. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. > http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008 > 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/ > 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/
