Thanks Platt, So much to read, I hope to look at it. I'm eager to see how issues of desire, selfishness, greed, hedonism, are sorted out. What about pleasure and quality. The Bible says their is pleasure in sin, for a season,
How does the addict in denial, loving his addiction, seeing momentary "quality" tell the difference, or the sinner in his sin? When there is disagreement between an addict and others, a criminal who doesn't see or acknowledge his crime. What about human blindness and human deception. The individual may think her evil to be quality-and does! It all seems so loosely defined, vague, and really a cop-out to say, when pressed, its "beyond knowing, beyond defininition". But when it suits the purveyor of quality to make a point, or have her way, then, all of a sudden definitions apply, and their is static certainty when it meets her agenda. Sounds very specious to me. As to the transcendent and immanent issue, my next excerpt will address that. Moq seems transcendent like Plato's forms, or the god of the Enlightenment. It is transcendent within a monistic creation. There is no real transcendence in the sense of an absolutely different realm of being, which is superior and on a totally different level. Good to hear from you, Jon On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:05 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon: > > In Chapter 30 of Lila you'll find a discussion of the source of the Quality > premise. Most of not all of your questions are answered there. It's a > somewhat complex explanation. So I suggest it is the best source to go > to rather than any interpretation I might offer. The nearest to a summary > is this: > > "Dharma is beyond all questions of what is internal and what is external. > Dharma is Quality itself, the principle of "rightness" which gives > structure > and purpose to the evolution of all life and to the evolving understanding > of the universe which life has created." (Lila, 30) > > Since you're interested in history, Jon, I think you'll find Pirsig's > investigation of the roots of religion and the birth of the Quality premise > of > value. > > Platt > > On 26 Apr 2010 at 2:22, Jon Bennett wrote: > > > Hey Guys, > > > > Been away all day, will join in tomorrow. > > Just want to say moq isn't transcendent in the same way as Judaism and > > Christianity. And Platt I see moq as I do the other nature based, > new-age, > > religions. > > > > Where am I wrong on this. And this is why it doesn't transcend nature, it > > regards nothing but the creation as real. Is this right? > > > > Thanks, > > Jon > > 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
