Andie, The statement has nothing to do with Buddhism, or traveling towards, or a perspective, or indifference. What can one say of the unpatterned, the undifferentiated? The fearful may project it as hell or chaos; the optimistic may project it as heaven or bliss. All goodness, because it is all potentiality? That's a nice perspective. But within the *undifferentiated* their is no you to project or have a perspective. For those who think I no not appreciate static quality enough, you are very wrong? But then their seems to be a problem with talking about ones own life experiences, so I won't say more.
Marsha On Sep 10, 2013, at 8:36 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> wrote: > (Adrie) > > 2. From a Dynamic Quality (unpatterened) view nothing is right or wrong, > better or worse.(Marsha) > > > One of the biggest mistakes of bhuddism, is to take indifference as a > perspective, a horizon to travel towards. > > > 2013/9/11 MarshaV <[email protected]> > >> >> dmb, >> >> If I am to address your complaint I will need a little more information. >> Please specify your exact complaint with each statement. And please >> explain to which of the statements each quote that you've provided applies, >> and exactly how it specifically justifies your compliant. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> p.s. I have changed the word 'will' to 'may' in the fourth statement, as >> it is a more appropriate word. If that is enough to dissolve your >> complaint all the better. >> >> >> Marsha said to djh: >> >> 1. I accept the MoQ's idea that the world is nothing but value. >> >> 2. From a Dynamic Quality (unpatterened) view nothing is right or wrong, >> better or worse. >> >> 3. From the static (patterned) view a pattern exist because it is useful. >> >> 4. I also accept that on the static (conventional) level *individual >> judgements* of what's bad or good may differ because of different static >> pattern histories and differences in the present dynamic conditions. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 10, 2013, at 11:17 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> dmb says: >>> Again, you are confusing the disease with cure. The view that nothing is >> right or wrong and the view that everyone has their own individual >> judgements is the disease. This is exactly what Pirsig about SOM. >>> >>> "From the perspective of subject-object science, the world is a >> completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point to anything. >> Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything is just functions, like >> machinery. There is nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally >> wrong with lying, with theft, with suicide, with murder, with genocide. >> There is nothing morally wrong because there are no morals, just >> functions." (277-8) >>> >>> "A scientific, intellectual culture had become a culture of millions of >> isolated people living and dying in little cells of psychic solitary >> confinement, unable to talk to one another, really, and unable to judge one >> another because scientifically speaking it is impossible to do so. ..He >> could invent moral goals for himself, but they are just artificial >> inventions. Scientifically speaking he has no goals." (283) >>> >>> Plus, it's contradictory to say the world is nothing but value and >> nothing is right or wrong. >>> >>> "...the Metaphysics of Quality concludes that the old Puritan & >> Victorian social codes should not be followed [or attacked] blindly … They >> should be dusted off and re-examined, fairly and impartially, to see what >> they were trying to accomplish and actually did accomplish towards building >> a stronger society. ...These moral bads and goods are not just ‘customs’. >> They are as real as rocks and trees." >>> >>> "In a subject-object understanding of the world these terms have no >> meaning. There is no such thing as "human rights." There is no such thing >> as moral reasonableness. There are subjects and objects and nothing >> else.This soup of sentiments about logically nonexistent entities can be >> straightened out by the Metaphysics of Quality. It says that what is meant >> by "human rights" is usually the moral code of intellect-vs. -society, the >> moral right of intellect to be free of social control... According to the >> Metaphysics of Quality these "human rights" have not just a sentimental >> basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis. They are essential to the >> evolution of a higher level of life from a lower level of life. They are >> for real." (307) >>> >>> >>> How can you square your view with Pirsig's text? Crowbars and dynamite, >> perhaps? >> 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 > > > > -- > parser > 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
