[Andre]
... this is just a thought (streching things a bit) what Pirsig did
do with this example is implanting some sort of purpose within the
MoQ's evolutionary framework.a purpose which, given the context ,
makes 'sense' of the existence and profession of the chemistry
professor, and inviting us (if you like) to find our own purpose/
place within this evolutionary MoQ framework.
[Arlo]
To your first point, I'd say that "purpose" is purely
hindsight-written. We say the "purpose" of subatomic pattern is to
(minimally) make more complicated inorganic patterns, but this is
only looking back and seeing what they "did" and then ascribing that
as having been "their purpose".
In other words, stating the "purpose" of quantum particles to create
chemistry professors is simply stating "well, if that's what they
DID, it must have been their PURPOSE". Seen gazing backwards in time,
"purpose" is just a comfy illusion we use to maintain the idea that
we were "destined" or "pre-ordained" to be here.
Dan's recent heartfelt post has me thinking about my own daughter,
and her wholly unintentional existence. Sixteen years later, its hard
to imagine a life, or in fact a day, without her, indeed, the thought
of such a life seems empty and sad. When I think back to the one
night, the very particular situations that gave rise to her creation,
it seems now like it must have been pre-ordained, as I can't imagine
my life any other way. But had I opted to travel, as I had intended,
that night, she would quite simply never have existed, and in that
timeline, I wouldn't miss her because she never would've been. Maybe
I'd have a son. Or two. Or no children. The point is that this is the
same with "purpose". We look back at the evolution of quantum
particles to physics professors and can't imagine it having been any
different, because we wouldn't exist. But it *could* have been.
Yes, I agree, "purpose" is "our own", although it (like all
intellectual patterns) is socially constructed and meaningful only
within a social context. It is the story we tell ourselves to make
sense of what we see looking backwards in time.
[Andre]
Purpose within the context of finding your own dharma.
[Arlo]
"Purpose" is guiding abstraction that, as intellectual beings awash
in social dialogue, gives us the ability to abscond from time; to
posit a past and deliberate a future. Symbolic representations like
this are very powerful social devices, and have enabled humans (and
wielders of said abstractions) to escape from the Neverending Now. It
is a two-headed beast that serves to draw control of the future out
of validation of the past. Dharma requires to be neither in the past
nor the future, but in the present moment, responding to Quality.
I'd say the paradox is that it is these patterns that have made us
lose the connection to Dharma in the first place (although I hope
Locke finds Dharma soon). This is why the Eastern way is to "kill
these patterns", and one of those patterns that must be killed is "purpose".
[Andre]
Starting in your heart and head and then your hands, and then work
outward from there. (ZMM,p291).
[Arlo]
This isn't directed at you, of course, but I want to say that the
fallacy is that you need "purpose" to "be". You don't. What you
demonstrate here does not require purpose, it requires only
responding to Quality in the now.
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/
