Ian,
I'm interested in reading the essay by Wendy Ellyat.
Marsha
At 08:49 AM 11/23/2008, you wrote:
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/
.
.
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/
