On May 14, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Dan Glover wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 3:57 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> Marsha: >>>> The MoQ has been reified when it is held within a strict framework. >>> >>> Dan: >>> The Metaphysics of Quality is a metaphysics. As such, it has >>> parameters that serve as a framework through which we can order >>> experience. It isn't set in concrete; it is written in pencil rather >>> than pen. In fact, to reify a concept seems to go against the grain of >>> the MOQ. Not sure what you're getting at by using that word... >> >> Marsha: >> To reify does go against the grain of the MoQ, but it represents an >> insidious and common mental habit that leads to attachment and to >> suffering. Part of the process of reification, as I understand it, is to >> remove the object or concept from its broader context. It's often done >> to simplify a concept, to make it more understandable, manageable and >> memorable. The problem comes when the context is forgotten and >> the definition becomes solidified and more "real" than the experience. > > Dan: > > I still fail to see how this applies to the MOQ, unless a person > begins making statements like: the MOQ is reality. It is not. The MOQ > is a way of ordering reality. It isn't really "out there" in the sense > some contributors both in the past and present seem to think.
Marsha: Since this is speculation without question, I'll leave it without comment. > Marsha: >> Should patterns be seen as promoting "agency" when millions of people >> are suffering from patterns of bondage? > > Dan: > > I have no idea what you mean by promoting "agency." Marsha: 'Agency' was a reference to Arlo's post. Maybe you didn't read his post. > Marsha: > > And if you're at all interested >> in Buddhism, you know that attachment and suffering can occur through >> bondage to good patterns too. > > Dan: > Well, yes. That is exactly what I said earlier. You replied simply > "okay." So I take it you agreed. A person must obtain a certain level > of virtue and detachment before they begin meddling in other people's > affairs in the name of compassion. > > Marsha: > So I am suggesting that we remember a >> good word like 'constraint' may need to be erased to represent a broader >> context. Patterns may represent a 'greater structure to bring a greater >> agency,' but they can also represent a prison. Patterns may be like a >> kind of freedom, or tolerable restraint, or a harmful, intolerable ignorance. > > Dan: > > Static patterns of quality determine our lives and constrain, or > limit, our actions. We follow them because we have to. But that > doesn't equate to patterns being a prison. Marsha: A prison is a type of constraint. If you do not agree with the connotation of the word, then you don't. Thanks for the discussion. 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
