Hello everyone On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 2:50 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Dan Glover wrote: > >> Hello everyone >> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 5:25 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Desires are just a way to ward off one's only certainty: death. Desires >>> project >>> existence into the future so one does not have to deal with one's fear of >>> death. >> >> Hi Marsha >> >> I think the MOQ would say that there is no one desire... rather, there >> are different kinds of desire that all have different connotations. >> There are biological desires, social desires, and intellectual >> desires. From LILA: >> >> "Celebrity is to social patterns as sex is to biological patterns. Now >> he was getting it. This celebrity is Dynamic Quality within a static >> social level of evolution. It looks and feels like pure Dynamic >> Quality for a while, but it isn't. Sexual desire is the Dynamic >> Quality that primitive biological patterns once used to organize >> themselves. Celebrity is the Dynamic Quality that primitive social >> patterns once used to organize themselves. That gives celebrity a new >> importance. >> >> "None of this celebrity has any meaning in a subject-object universe. >> But in a value-structured universe celebrity comes roaring to the >> front of reality as a huge fundamental parameter. It becomes an >> organizing force of the whole social level of evolution. Without this >> celebrity force, advanced complex human societies might be impossible. >> Even simple ones." >> >> Dan comments: >> >> So, looking at intellectual desire from a value-centered universe, and >> taking Marsha's quote into account, we could say that projecting >> existence into the future is the Dynamic Quality that primitive >> intellectual patterns once used to organize themselves. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Dan > >Marsha: > Sneaky are you Dan. ;-)
Moi? Sneaky? >Marsha: > I suppose if this were about using analogies, yours might be said to work; > though I like my -prohibited- analogy better. But under all theories I've > got everything-connected-to-everything without need of any analogies, > except for fun. Intellectual fun I'd like to think; after all, this is a > philosophy/ > club where word games are played. - I was't thinking of any particular > category of desire. Dan: Yes, that's okay. I just thought perhaps by using the MOQ we could shed more light on the nature of desire. >Marsha: > Except for the wish to become enlightened, the Buddha has said that > desire is the source of all suffering. I suppose I needed to work this out > for myself, because desire has culturally been labeled good. Maybe > it is more about en-joying the moment. Dan: I'd say that there is no enlightenment other than that which we already have, so to wish for it is to wish for... what? Looking at suffering, it seems that without it there would be no evolution, no need for "betterment." Therefore, within the framework of the MOQ, suffering is seen as the negative face of Quality. Now, if desire were the source of all suffering, then the desire for good food to eat and clean water to drink would make no sense. A person could just as well eat out of garbage cans and drink from the toilet. Of course we all know we'd soon sicken and die if we engaged in such practices. So some desires do not give rise to suffering but rather prevent it. Wouldn't you agree? Thank you, Dan 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
