"quality is an event"? lga
On 31. mars 2013, at 23:21, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:37 AM, David Harding <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Dan, >> >>>>>> I've removed parts of this thread in which you were being "downright >> rude at times, even vulgar".. or where we weren't discussing the >> intellectual aspects of the MOQ. For my part in this devolution I >> apologise.. If you don't mind I'd like to keep our conversation civilised >> and hopefully away from social bickering or biological rudeness.. >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> Whatever you think I am, or wish me to be, I am. >>>> >>>> But that's where you're wrong. How easy life would be if it would >> require a simple change in mind to change our reality. If only it would >> bend to our whims.. Such an easy life. >>> >>> Dan: >>> That is not what I said though, now is it. I've just re-read what I >>> wrote and there is nothing simple about it. In fact, due to >>> constraints placed upon us by culture there are very few who are able >>> to break free. They insist that the world exists independently, that >>> no matter what they think, it is forever separate from them. >>> >>> But it isn't. >> >> Right - so our ideas are based in our culture and a simple change of mind >> will clearly not change our reality? > > Hi David > > The discussion is becoming too unwieldy for me to continue, plus you seem > to be making a lot of erroneous assumptions about who I am and what I am > saying. Although I have repeated myself many times, you do not seem to be > grasping my words. The above reply is an example. > > You continue to insist on 'simple' when nothing is simple. Later, you > introduce the notion of experience as a third category in the MOQ when I > have repeatedly offered you the quote from Lila's Child about experience > and Dynamic Quality becoming synonymous. How on earth can experience be a > third category when it becomes synonymous with experience? > > You insist that according to the MOQ we experience static quality. You've > lifted quotes from Lila to bolster that opinion and yet you fail to see > where such a notion leads: right back to subjects observing objects as > primary values. > > This latest refusal to understand what I am saying leads me to believe I am > wasting my time here. I've spent many hours working on my replies to you > and yet you do not seem to read them and/or comprehend what I am saying. > > You feel that if we could wish the world into being what we want it to be, > the world would be a far different place. What you fail to realize is that > we are doing just that every moment of our lives. What we wish, however, > has been beaten into us from the very beginning. The static quality > patterns of our lives are constrained into being what we know them to be. > It is all but impossible to break free of that knowing, especially if one > is blind. > > The first step is to wake up, to open one's eyes and see that the world is > not separate and apart from us. We create the world and then tell > ourselves it is separate and apart from us and we have no influence upon > it. We know for a fact the world exists independently of us and has done so > way before we were born and will continue to do so long after we pass away. > > Even when someone comes along to tell us this isn't so, we fight it. > Consider of all the books that have been written on this very subject: > Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill, Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor > Frankl, How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie, The Book > of Wisdom by the Dalai Lama, Anthony Robbins' Personal Classic, and on and > on and on. > > You are saying all these thinkers are wrong. Robert Pirsig is wrong. And > yet any one of these books, if read and put into practice, would totally > transform one's life. But more, one would come to realize that no book is > necessary. One would see that we create our own reality: whatever we think > it is, or wish it to be, it becomes. There is no separation between the > world and us. > > This is exactly what Robert Pirsig is on about in both his books and all > his subsequent writings. If you take that one little sentence about the > world existing within the human imagination AND UNDERSTAND IT, it would be > one of those rare 'ah ha!' moments that come along once or twice in a > lifetime. > > Yet: what are you doing? Fighting it. Telling me that that cannot possibly > be so. Going on and on about how something so 'simple' is completely wrong: > that you know this for a fact, and anything I say is going to fall upon > deaf ears. > > It is your loss that you refuse to even consider such a possibility, not > mine. > > Anyway, the rest of the discussion pales in comparison to this disagreement > and so I am deleting it from this post. If you have some burning questions, > feel free to address them. > > Thank you, > > Dan > > http://www.danglover.com > 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
