On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:14 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> [Marsha] > "That sounds quite definitive, quite fixed." > > [David] > Yes, Marsha doesn't like fixed and definitive statements. Especially when > static patterns are 'ever-changing'. Right Marsha? > > [Marsha] > http://cosmicplay.net/Cosmic/Cosmoq/cosmiclila1.html > > [David quotes the link] > "She completely deludes most people and is a magician, a trickster, and hides > behind a show of magic and pretence, sometimes adopting the form of other > deities. Like the other gods, She is ambiguous by nature and is on par with > Vishnu or Shiva and may even be more powerful." > > [David] > What a great way to be on a philosophy forum! Ambiguous and hiding behind a > show of magic and pretence. That sounds a lot like you're destroying the > *intellectual* values of clarity and honesty by valuing ambiguity and > pretence... > > The 'Cosmic' Lila described here, like the Lila in the book clearly do not > value ' staticness'. To them static is evil. They all follow another kind > of good which is completely different to static good.. > > "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source > of all things, completely simple and always new. It was the moral force that > had motivated the brujo in Zuni. It contains no pattern of fixed rewards and > punishments. Its only perceived good is freedom and its only perceived evil > is static quality itself - any pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries > to contain and kill the ongoing free force of life." > > "Lila's problem wasn't that she was suffering from lack of Dynamic freedom. > It's hard to see how she could possibly have any more freedom." > > This Dynamic Quality - good and evil - is supported by the Code of Art in the > MOQ. Dynamic Quality is higher than the intellectual level in the MOQ. > > *But* as RMP points out - > > "This last, the Dynamic-static code, says what's good in life isn't defined > by society or intellect or biology. What's good is freedom from domination by > any static pattern, but that freedom doesn't have to be obtained by the > destruction of the patterns themselves." > > Do you know how freedom can be obtained without destroying the patterns as > you do by being ambiguous and assuming pretense? > Do you think it has anything to do with me? It doesn't. It is rather than the inaptitude of your own position in trying to be an intellectual when you grow up. You have nothing important to say so you post "quotes" and whine about Lucy. 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
