Arlo to Marsha: Are these structures also constraining? Of course. Is there a danger when structure becomes so entrenched it can longer evolve? Of course.
But I'll take the "freedoms" these structures enable any day over the really imprisoning way things would be without them. Andre: As I was reading this Arlo, against the background of my (and dmb's) comments to Marsha I was transported back to my days as a social worker (in both social services and psychiatry) and the term 'suicide' popped into my head. Through these roles and in their different contexts I experienced lots of despair, sadness and suicidal wishes expressed by those with whom I came in contact. I think there is a danger here that if we keep on labeling our patterns as representing 'constraint' or 'bondage' as Marsha does, as opposed to revealing or pointing to DQ (which is freedom), we commit the same mistake as has happened in many of the Western organized church's static symbolism and dogmas, be they Christian, Muslim or Jew. The static symbols, the sacraments, the rituals are taken as real...'reified' in Marsha's words and they have taken over and obscured the paths to these freedoms to which they point, as you rightly point out. It seems to me that herein lies the danger if we mix these two (i.e. DQ/sq) up and seeing no hope or no 'escape' from our static patterns of quality. Mixing up DQ/sq can lead to suicide and assassination and imho completely misses the message the MOQ holds and seeks to convey. And. lo and behold, I scroll down to Marsha's post and read: "Lately, I've been thinking about assassination; is it something to be proud of?" I enjoy your posts,patience and clarity Arlo. 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
