Hello everyone On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:52 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dan comments: > I know most of you have said how you paid little attention to the > discussions between myself and David Harding but we've been over this many > times. I am not at all sure why I am bothering writing to this group other > than Paul's mention of the MOQ discussions of late. Perhaps he reads some > of my posts, at least. > > In my opinion, the two contexts of the "MOQ" that Paul is talking about > might actually be the subject/object metaphysics versus the MOQ proper. > Again, I went over this with Harding at least a dozen times. RMP begins > from that perspective before leading the reader into the MOQ specifics. It > seems a pity no one bothered with reading our discussion. Hell, even > Harding didn't seem to read it. > > Anyway, it is good to see these quotes from Lila's Child being used even if > I do not completely agree with the analysis Paul offers. > > [Ron sez] > Your right, there was only so much repetative egocentric bullying one can > take. > So no one paid much attention. I dont know why you are bothering to write > either, > (whaaaa) > Dan: Yes which is why I rarely answer any of your posts. Unless you have your nose shoved up dmb's ass you're pretty much attacking Marsha. As if you have any idea what she is saying, or dmb for that matter. > > The two contexts are about 180degree enlightenment and 360degree > enlightenment. > Dan: Beg to differ. I highly doubt you have any idea what you are talking about. > > The hero's journey. > > Going into the underworld of hades (180) and returning to improve the > human condition(360) > Dan: See? You are equating hell with enlightenment. Really? No wonder you get mean, laugh and joke whenever anyone attempts to guide you to a better perspective. > > Breaking down static forms (180) and effectivly communicating experience > through effective forms (360) > > Thats the arguement Mr Turner seems to be addressing. The one you disagree > with. > > You seem to be saying that the context sits apon: > > S/O metaphysics (society)(everyday world) and "MOQ proper" (deconstruction > of that everyday world) > Dan: My specific point has more to do with the mythos, the vast collection of human knowledge. The MOQ is something new. It has yet to make its way into the mythos. It appears to me that even most of those who have read Lila have yet to form an adequate understanding of it. So to call it the "static mythos' seems a bit of a misnomer. > > MOQ proper being the breakdown and deconstruction of S/O metaphysics > (society) (180 degree enlightenment) > (Hades, world of the dead). > Dan: As I said (repeated ad nauseum) to Harding, there is no enlightenment. It is only those who have yet to climb the mountain that the mountain exists. Once at the top, one can see there never was any mountain at all. Going back down into the valley the mountain exists once again but only as an analogy. > > You are one of the (180 degree-ers ) that is the problem and the reason > why you not only disagree but also > why you did'nt really understand what Paul was saying. While plugging > yourself shamelessly. > Dan: It may well be the I do not understand what Paul is saying but I understand what you are saying. It is as always a case of sour grapes with you. You are a bully. You desire to build yourself up by tearing others down. That is a shame as there is so much you could learn. As for shamelessly plugging myself... if I don't do it, who will? I sold 2000 books last month in 7 different countries. How many did you sell? Oh... that's right. You don't have any books to sell. All you can do is shamelessly harp on others. > > In the new introduction to LILA, Pirsig writes: > Zen Buddhism is sometimes symbolised with a circle.The bottom of this > circle is where a student of Zen starts.At the 180 degree top of the circle > is Zen enlightenment.Here the student has completely left the world of > everyday affairs, sometimes called “small self,” and entered the world of > the buddhas, or “big self.” > Dan: There are many different schools of zen. Sometimes it is symbolized with a circle, as Robert Pirsig says. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes students start at the bottom of that symbolic circle. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes the student completely leaves the world of everyday affairs. Sometimes they do not. In zen nothing is written in stone. Each path is as individual as we are. > > But the circle is only half completed. > > The student, who has previously been directed by the events of his > everyday life, is now directed in the buddhas’ world by a force called > “dharma” which translates as “duty” but means a lot more.He does not just > follow this dharma, he is one with it.He completes the circle, returning > with an enlightened understanding to integrate himself with the world of > everyday affairs. > Dan: Some students may be directed as such. Others not so much. Part of the reason I am here is to share the knowledge I gained while working with Robert Pirsig and others. If someone cares to read what I have to say, that is fine. If they do not, that is fine too. I realize there are those such as yourself who are incapable of understanding in the first place. However, it does become rather disheartening to spend so much time on these posts only to be ignored and blown off by those who could no doubt benefit the most by reading them. When I read effusive praise for Paul's work (and don't get me wrong... it is a great piece of writing) and at the same time I see him saying many of the same things I said only in a slightly different context it tends to make me wonder what I am doing here at all. > > ZMMis a journey through the first half of the circle, Lila is a journey > into the second half. > Dan: I have no problem with this analogy. 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
