dmb,
You have accused me of hostility. What is at the core of this opinion? What difference does it make if you hold this to be true??? Marsha p.s. There was no hostility on my part. > On Nov 13, 2013, at 11:26 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 9, dmb posted an article from the New York Times opinion page: > > "When Socrates Met Phaedrus: Eros in Philosophy," by Simon Critchley. > http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/when-socrates-met-phaedrus-eros-in-philosophy/?_r=0 > > > > > On Nov 10, MarshaV gave her standard reply to everything: > > Yet, how does RMP state morality can be served? > > RMP: > While sustaining biological and social patterns > Kill all intellectual patterns. > Kill them completely > And then follow Dynamic Quality > And morality will be served. > > ... > > "When Phaedrus first went to India he'd wondered why, if this passage of > enlightenment into pure Dynamic Quality was such a universal reality, did it > only occur in certain parts of the world and not others? At the time he'd > thought this was proof that the whole thing was just Oriental religious > baloney, the equivalent of a magic land called 'heaven' that Westerners go to > if they are good and get a ticket from the priests. Now he saw that > enlightenment is distributed in all parts of the world just as the color > yellow is distributed in all parts of the world, but some cultures accept it > and others screen out recognition of it." > > (LILA, Chapter 32) > > > On Nov 12, MarshaV recommended the killing of intellect again: > > Of the talk about dukkha being like a spinning wheel? From Anthony McWatt's > 'MoQ Textbook' > > "The MOQ sees the wheel of karma as attached to a cart that is going > somewhere - from quantum forces through inorganic forces and biological > patterns and social patterns to the intellectual patterns that perceive the > quantum forces. In the sixth century B.C. in India there was no evidence of > this kind of evolutionary progress, and Buddhism, accordingly, does not pay > attention to it. Today it’s not possible to be so uninformed. The suffering > which the Buddhists regard as only that which is to be escaped, is seen by > the MOQ as merely the negative side of the progression toward Quality (or, > just as accurately, the expansion of quality). Without the suffering to > propel it, the cart would not move forward at all. (Pirsig, 1997a)" > > The Ultimate Truth (Quality) is something each individual must realize; it is > the still point at the center of the wheel. That still point is not you or > me or any things. In meditation, you're moving towards that center. You are > letting go of all patterns: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. > The patterns are "killed", or 'completely stopped', in order to realize the > still point in the center of the wheel - the silence. The letting go is not > annihilation or a rejection, but it gives one the perspective and peace of > mind to understand the whole from being at the center instead out on the > circumference where you just get whirled about or stuck in a gumption rut. > When refreshed, one moves forward smoothly and/or creatively. Imho. > > > > > On Nov 13, MarshaV posted quotes on "peace of mind": > > RMP has spoken of peace of mind in terms "Peace of mind produces right > values, right values produce right thoughts. Right thoughts produce right > actions and right actions ..." But what of right speech??? It's the third > factor in the eight-fold path. It might be worth the time to investigate > what Buddhism presents concerning this category. Here is one Buddhist's take > on right speech: > > > dmb: > Later on the 13th of Nov, Marsha ALMOST mentioned the actual topic (the > difference between true rhetoric and false rhetoric): > "Peace of mind produces right values, right values produce right thoughts." > ...But what of right speech??? It's the third factor in the eight-fold path. > It might be worth the time to investigate what Buddhism presents concerning > this category.... > > > dmb says: > > Yea, what about right speech? > > What about RELEVANT thought and relevant speech? What kind of motive is > operating in Marsha's replies? The first two responses were not only > irrelevant but also deliberately designed to change the subject and generate > hostility. > > Critchley's article should be of interest to anyone in a Pirsig discussion > group - for obvious reasons. And yet Marsha has responded four times without > even mentioning the article, without mentioning true or false rhetoric, > without mentioning either Phaedrus (Plato's or Pirsig's), without mentioning > Socrates, Plato, Critchley or any of the ideas in his article. What motive is > behind this sort of conversational behavior? It certainly doesn't seem to be > motivated by any sincere interest in Critchley's view or even any genuine > interest in the topic. > > The Buddhist's eightfold path does NOT begin with "killing" the intellect. > Quite the opposite. It begins with the right view, the right intention and > then right speech. Each form of rightness follows from the previous kind > rightness. And I think it's safe to say that irrelevant views are not the > right views and hostile intentions are not right either. Rather than engage > with the actual subject in some interesting or illuminating way, Marsha's > responses offer only irrelevant confusions and bitterness. What is the point > of doing that? > > If the article is of no interest, why bother hitting the reply button? If you > have nothing to offer on the topic, why not simply remain silent? Check your > motives, Marsha. Look at yourself. You have replied four times and yet you > have not said one word about the article or the dialogue it discusses. So, > what do you think you're doing? Looks like the wrong view, the wrong > intentions and very wrong speech to me. > > ___ 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
