Strange, I wonder why I hadn't noticed before ... Thanks Marsha
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 2:40 PM, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 08:31 AM 11/23/2008, you wrote: >> >> Has anyone come across this before ? > > Ian, > > What? Lila as "divine play"? Divine play, game or dance? Of course! > > Marsha > > > >> Lila = "divine play" - life as a spontaneous game played by >> lighthearted forces beyond our understanding. from Sri Aurobindo in >> "The Valley of the False Glimme" >> >> Quoted in an essay on "Inclusionality" by Wendy Ellyat. (I'll dig out >> a link or forward a copy if I can't find on-line.) >> >> Regards >> Ian >> >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:33 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Andrè and Steve >> > >> > On 22.: >> > >> > Steve: >> >> I'm still not seeing what you see >> >> as a problem. Maybe it would help me understand your point if you >> >> explained what an SOMist is to you. >> > >> > Gentlemen: SOM and "the S/O distinction" must be kept apart. I know >> > it's cumbersome to "dissolve metaphysical disputes..." constantly" but >> > SOM is the conviction that the s/o split is from eternity to eternity. >> > i.e. existence's very base, while the distinction is the said split as a >> > static VALUE (for value it is as Andrè says below) having seen trough >> > its bluff as a metaphysics. Knowing that the split will start to >> > produce paradoxes if taken metaphysically ...and dissolve if pursued >> > "scientifically". >> > >> > Andre: >> >> Good question Steve and let me say first of all that we are in full >> >> agreement about most things concerning the MoQ. >> > >> >> I am also reluctant to call anything above the Intellectual level a >> >> 'level' in the same way that Pirsig suggested the term 'code' of >> >> which he first says it isn't code and then goes on to use the term >> >> 'code of Art' (p167) and repeats this on p 307 (Dynamic-static >> >> code). To be honest I was even toying with the idea that the MoQ is >> >> not a metaphysics at all (!) but I'd rather leave that to the >> >> experts. >> > >> >> First of all, I do not regard SOM as evil. Absolutely not. This >> >> rational, scientific approach has guided mankind to do many great >> >> things and prevented us from many a disaster. (mind you, it has >> >> caused some as well). Anyway, within the context of the MoQ I see >> >> SOM (Intell. PoV) as a potential threat for a number of reasons: >> > >> >> It has pervaded intellectual patterns to such an extent that it has >> >> assumed total ownership of our capacity to intellectualise.Both >> >> inductively and deductively. That is, not only how to, but also >> >> what's in it. All other influences upon our 'intellectualising' >> >> (just to be clear because this word also has connotations, I mean >> >> just thinking, our mental capacity [whatever that means..arrrgg]), >> >> tend to be reduced to subjective (in the negative of >> >> objective/scientific) frills. I am talking about intuition etc. >> > >> > One minor point. Andrè says that SOM have "pervaded intellectual >> > patterns", if this means "pervaded the level" I must blow my whistle. >> > In retrospect the 4th. level began as the conviction that there were >> > an objective reality (eternal principles) beyond the gods' realm, a >> > TRUTH that even transcends the gods. Thus the level began as a >> > "som", >> > it could not have developed as anything less, only the MOQ >> > transformed >> > it into ITS OWN 4th. level. >> > >> > Thus I must point out that "...SOM has pervaded intellectual patterns" >> > (provided it means the level) is a little misleading, as if people of >> > old were "intellecualizing" when pondering their social reality, i.e. >> > it equalizes thinking and intellect making the latter identical to >> > SOM's "mind" - a mental compartment that can be filled with different >> > intellectualizations. Phew! Speak about resolving metaphysical >> > disputes at the end of each sentence. >> > >> > Now, I don't think Andrê really lapses back in SOM, so much of the >> > above is from pure MOQ premises, but it's the words' old somish load >> > that keeps popping up. Also "thinking" is ambiguous, but enough for >> > now. >> > >> > Bodvar >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> It doesn' t recognise quality. It doesn't recognise morals.These >> >> sort of dangle at the edges somewhere. >> >> >> >> Perhaps an example is better: >> >> >> >> Suppose I have written a great song or poem...and suppose my teacher >> >> was a pure SOM'ist (I realise they do not come in that way but for >> >> the sake of the example) this person can shoot the song or poem down >> >> on the basis of not following the grammar rules properly or >> >> (ab)using meaning of different words I have put together in a >> >> different way. >> >> >> >> It reminds me of the film Dead Poet's Society with Robin Williams >> >> and the scene where the boys are told to tear the pages from their >> >> books defining good poetry, how to analyse good poetry and >> >> guidelines on how to write good poetry. He has the pages thrown into >> >> the rubbish bin. >> >> >> >> He then has them go outside and through various physical/mental >> >> (experiential) activities has each individual student 'find' >> >> himself, to find his own idea of what is good or what is not good. >> >> One can liken this process to Phaedrus' teaching methods. >> >> >> >> Pirsig has created a wonderful MoQ, for me it is a 'Code of Art'. >> >> And I don't want to see it shot down. >> >> >> >> In an earlier post I have reasserted the quality of SOM. It can >> >> continue to assist us, it can keep us on the straight and narrow. >> >> It's just that the MoQ has redefined this straight and shown that >> >> this narrow can be as broad as you like. >> >> >> >> I hope I have clarified it a bit Steve. I am not anti SOM, I just >> >> want to restrain its potential influence a bit over this MoQ. I hope >> >> I have done this for some of you, and know I have done this at least >> >> for myself. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> Andre >> >> 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/ >> > >> 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/ > > . > . > The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a reflection > of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end. > . > . > > > 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/
