Hi Marsha,
What do you find perfect about MoQ? I feel I am missing an
awful lot.
Thanks,
Willblake2
On May 20, 2009, at 12:06:25 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
From: MarshaV <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [MD] Is it serious?
Date: May 20, 2009 12:06:25 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Greetings Ham,
I do not know where your knowledge of Buddhism comes from, but
Buddhism, at its core, is all about 'know thyself', and all about
insight, and all about morality. A smart man knows what he does not know.
Marsha
At 01:17 AM 5/20/2009, you wrote:
>Hi WillBlake --
>
>
>>Yes, letting go of self, of the ego, of self consciousness.
>>The attainment of truth, liberation, as the Upanishads, Buddha,
>>Taoism, Zen, would all claim. I believe in that and am working
>>towards that too.
>>
>>It would seem from recent interpretations of MoQ (which is
>>obviously still in the making) that such release is not consistent
>>with this philosophy. In fact the claim is we are subject to
>>group behavior not individual expression.
>
>Sad but true. One has to acknowledge the self of consciousness
>before he can let go of it.
>Relegating ego and consciousness to a collective intellect is a step
>in the opposite direction. It denies the very self that seeks
>liberation and truth -- even the freedom to choose that path. For
>if there is no knowing 'I' to realize truth, if we have surrendered
>the subjective self to the objective universe, what is there left
to liberate?
>
>>But, as Pirsig has said in interviews, MoQ is waiting for the next
>>independent thinker, to carry it along. It would seem Pirsig is
>>waiting as well. Plato had his academy, current philosophies have
>>the Internet. Much more powerful and capable of generating
>>a synthesis of ideas, and even new ones, if there is actually
>>something new under the sun. What an opportunity!
>
>There's nothing new under the sun, but there is much to be revealed
>about existence if we don't approach it with a closed
>mind. Socrates said "The unexamined life is not worth living." But
>introspection is meaningless to those who deny the insight it can
>afford us. How often has Science been accused in this forum of
>failing to answer ultimate questions? Yet, the same voices are
>quick to demean spirituality and metaphysical insight as mythical
>remnants of an unenlightened age.
>
>Psychiatrist Richard Schain has written:
>"The tendency to neglect the metaphysical aspect of human life has
>always existed in the history of mankind but no era has so
>depreciated and disparaged metaphysics as the current
>one. Metaphysics is relegated to the realm of scholarly study or
>traditional religions where it exists in a tethered, tradition-bound
>form of little use to those seeking to develop their position in the
>universe. ...
>
>"'...[T]he essential feature in the life of an individual is his
>valuation of his interior self, i.e. his subjective self. There is
>no greater tragedy than the failure of an individual to realize this
>value. What hinders this development, however, is the modern view
>that there is no such thing as the self, that there is only a
>complex arrangement of synapses and neurons in the brain, giving
>rise to the illusion of self. Without a belief in the metaphysical
>self, humans are at the mercy of their environment, which in the
>present age fares little for the development of an interior
>self. Only a radical metaphysics will save the individual from
>drowning in the swamps of the materialist dogmas of contemporary society."
> -- [R. Schain: "Toward a Radical Metaphysics"]
>
>>Me, I want to live from the inside out, not the outside in; I want to
>>radiate, not absorb. . . I want to be a sun, not a black hole, I want
>>to be responsible, not a victim. All this can result from freedom
>>of the confining, needing, ego, "grasping and clinging" as a
>>translation of the early writers of Buddha's teachings would stress.
>
>As agents of value, we are all potential "suns". But if we cease
>desiring, as the Buddhists prescribe for "avoiding pain", we shut
>off the value sensibility that connects us with our essential
>source. That's retreating to a "black hole" existence in which
>being-aware has no more meaning than the insentient rock and human
>beings are pawns of biological evolution.
>
>We'll never understand man's place in the universe by pretending
>that subjects and objects don't exist.
>
>I share your sentiments, Will. Thanks for giving me this
>opportunity to reflect on them.
>
>Essentially yours,
>Ham
>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 self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
.
.
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/
