Hi Again Marsha, et. al.. Sorry to be so long getting back, haven't been feeling so good.
Anyway, I thought I would start a separate thread for this topic. I want to discuss where such ideas about static/dyn quality lead to politically. And I will show, that they have in the past, and inevitably always will lead to tyrannical regimes once they become the world view of the whole culture. The issues of political freedom, the respect for human rights, including women's rights and civil rights did not emerge from such a world view as the moq, and it is indeed alien to the recognition of such rights. I'm sure many on the list are ffamiliar with the work of Joseph Campbell. his work is very supportive of Eastern thought, and Prisig's views. Surely you will admit he is knowledgeable of the cultures and myths of the world, and is an expert in comparative mythology. Consider this quote from his book Myths to Live By. This is how the chapter "The Separation of East and West" "It is not easy for Westerners to realize that the ideas recently developed in the West of the individual, his selfhood, his rights, and his freedom, have no meaning whatsoever in the Orient. They had no meaning for primitive man. They would have meant nothing to the peoples of the early Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Chinese, or Indian civilizations. They are, in fact, repugnant to the ideals, the aims and orders of life, of most of the peoples of this earth. And yet, and here is my second point,they are the truly great "new thing" that we do indeed represent to the world and that constitutes our Occidental revelation of a properly human spiritual ideal, true to the highest potentiality of our species." You have freedom, even the freedom to read these words, not because you were envisioned as a static pattern continually being transformed by a dynamic pattern. This includes the freedom not to be arrested at will, dragged from your house and imprisoned or tortured for your thoughts and speech-and all the other freedoms and rights you enjoy and take for granted. These rights did not arise and were not acknowledged in the East where moq ideas were prevalent. You have these freedoms because you were seen as created in the very image of God. And you were endowed by your Creator with these rights because your life was seen as sacred. Not a static, certainly not a dynamic pattern, but a child of the living God. That is the source of freedom, personal and political. Thanks, Jon On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:18 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greetings Jon, > > > On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:08 PM, Jon Bennett wrote: > > > MarshaV, > > Again Marshsa, how do you determine reality. > > The word 'determine' suggest how I think about reality, and I do think > about reality, but reality is experience: unpatterned experiences > and patterned experiences. I am not elevating a gut feeling, but > reporting actual experiences as best I can without exaggeration. > > > > What is your epistemology. > > Knowledge is unpatterned and direct, and conceptually based on the > patterns of the past. > > > > Did you arrive at the definition of reality given below through the > > use of your reason, your senses, or did you have a revelation > > from "quality". > > All of the above and some insight gained through meditation. > > > > Or did you get this definition from the revealed truth of another, who > wrote > > it in a book. > > Certainly I have gained wisdom from exploring the words of others, RMP's > most explicitly, but I have read some very, very profound Buddhist texts > too, > and there is meditation, and mindfulness. BUT, I have had some simple > unpatterned experiences that demonstrate, first hand, the truth of the > wisdom. > > > > >> From a political standpoint, let me say unequivocally, absolutely, as an > > objective truth, fact or whatever you choose to call it, that the rights > of > > man, individual liberty, including their protection in law, and political > > institutions that protect them, did not and could not ever have arisen > from > > such a definition of reality as you have just given. > > What you list are static patterns of value, relative truths. But I do not > accept > that 'relative' implies 'equal'. The spovs you mention have proved to have > high > value because of their usefulness, and they tend to promote individual > freedom. > The MoQ has a hierarchical structure of levels which assigns patterns > within > each level more value then patterns within the levels below. > > > > To the contrary, you have defined reality in a way that invites, and has > > historically resulted, in tyranny. Ideas have consequences. > > Patterns (ideas) do have consequences, and I believe the most important > understanding is the nature of all patterns. While a pattern may belong to > a > discrete level, it is not independent, autonomous phenomenon or > concept, but an ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent occurrence. > > My stress in defining reality is always on the nature of patterns, because > it seems to be that it is by mistaking patterns to be independent "real" > entities great harm and confusion is created. It's SOM, subject/object > thinking, versus the > MoQ, and I'm stressing the nature of patterns as quality. I'm trying to, > anyway. > > To understand the nature of patterns is to gain wisdom and freedom, not > tyranny. > > > Marsha > > > > Reality is Quality(Dynamic Quality(unpatterned experience)/static > > quality(patterned experience(inorganic,biological,social&intellectual > > patterns))) > > > > So what do you have in mind for Truth with a capital T? Or are you > talking > > about politics with a small t? > > > > > > > > Marsha > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Apr 17, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Jon Bennett wrote: > >> > >>> Hi MarshaV, > >>> > >>> I am interested in Truth with a capital T, as Francis Shcaeffer would > >> say. > >>> Much to be said on this, but for starters, its not truth as I or as you > >> or > >>> as anybody wishes it. It's Truth that IS regardless of what you think > >> about > >>> it, or if you even understand or perceive it. > >>> > >>> The first thing that strikes me about our current crisis of truth, is > >> that > >>> we should even ask what it means. Would you ask what a lie means, what > >>> deceit, falsehood, or error means. But we are in such a crisis and that > >> is > >>> what P's books address. > >>> > >>> Political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the > >>> understanding of human rights and the laws that protect these did not > >> arise > >>> out of a vacuum, out of a nothingness. They arose out of a very > specific > >>> understanding of Truth, with a capital T. And the elimination, the > denial > >> of > >>> those freedoms and rights, arise out of a specific "understanding" , > >> truly a > >>> misunderstanding of truth, as well. > >>> > >>> Even the understanding of an individual, whether an individual human > >> being, > >>> or individual human rights, or individual laws that protect and > preserve > >>> them, or the idea of an individual thing or entity, are based in > >>> philosophical and ultimately theological assumptions. > >>> > >>> The very reason I am free to write and you are free to read these > words, > >> is > >>> based on just such philosophical and theological assumptions that were > >>> extended to moral, legal, and political institutions. > >>> > >>> And where different assumptions prevail we would not be able to speak > so > >>> freely. All cultures, religions, and philosophies do not lead to the > same > >>> understanding and protections of human rights and individual liberties. > >>> > >>> That is why we should seek a genuine, a True understanding of history > and > >>> the ideas behind it. And why we should work out our paradigms with > "fear > >> and > >>> trembling". > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Jon > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 3:43 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Hello Jon, > >>>> > >>>> On Apr 16, 2010, at 11:57 PM, Jon Bennett wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> But beyond this-what makes something good anyway? What makes > something > >>>> just. > >>>>> You must start by telling me your epistemology. You must have a valid > >> way > >>>> of > >>>>> knowing truth, or you are playing a wishing game. > >>>> > >>>> What type of truth are you wishing for? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> And without such a reliable foundation, someone will impose their > truth > >>>> on > >>>>> you, and take away your liberty. > >>>> > >>>> And in the light of truth as you wish it, how is this statement true? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Marsha > >>>> > >> > >> _ > > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
