Andre,
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear MOQ’ers > Some time ago ( Wed, sept 14) John M said: > The MOQ isn't a living, dynamic entity. It is a static intellectual > pattern. It was made at a point in time by one person, in the midst of his > own unique circumstances. But it doesn't fit mine,…’ > > Andre: > This „ it doesn’t fit mine” keeps on bothering me a bit. We’ve had so > many people here who eventually left (in frustration may I add) because > there crept in an anomaly with what they considered to be the MOQ…i.e.what > Pirsig was talking about and their own experience of the perspective > furnished by this self same MOQ as devised by Pirsig. > Jc: I don't see how a metaphysics of undefinable Quality can be static. In fact, I'd say its in the very nature of Value to be dynamic and evolving. The MoQ is a sort of metaphysics of evolution and thus it itself is all about evolving. How can something that is about evolving toward betterness, be called "static"? I guess it could be if it's author chose that it be static, but that seems a low-quality choice to me! I agree with much of John McC, but this part I don't. > > We have seen good, well-intentioned people leaving this discussion because > their experience did not seam well with the MOQ as represented in LILA, > defended by the likes of Anthony, dmb, Arlo, Ron and Dan. They argued a > discrepancy between their living of the MOQ (as they experienced it) and > Pirsig’s deposition thereof in LILA. > > LILA is a book…an exposition of the insights of a very special person who, > as Cat Stevens once poetically said ¨turned the world to order” ( the song > Jesus on Buddha and the Chocolate Box). And, boy this world needs to be > turned to order… . It’s a karmic mess…we all know it, see it, feel it and > when we look honestly we see that the MOQ tells us how. The nice thing of > course is that it does not give us any definite answers! Thank goodness for > that. Otherwise we’re be stuck with another dogma. > > Jc: Exactly. AB: > It does give us pointers. > > And because Pirsig did ( when you are…and certainly you are) lend > assistance to a living, sentient being with the ordering of the > interpretation of our experience he thereby presents us with a clear > starting point that is ever changing and ever renewed. > > It is good to have a solid foundation from which to see, feel, hear and > argue. This is not dogma…it is realizing that words are simply pointers. > And it is important to get the words right. And once the words are in place > they are properly understood…in the context within which they receive their > fullest meaning and explanatory power. > > In the same way that a menu is a pointer to the food it does not and > cannot be a substitute or a guarantee for the quality of the food that ends > up on your plate. No matter what the menu says…there is no guarantee that > it is going to be to your liking… and pay special attention here to the > word/concept YOUR. > > If the food does not agree with you…are you going to blame the menu…the > waiter, the cook, the butter, the oil, the heat, the oven, the weather…your > mechanic. your wife, your children, the maid, your bank manager, your pet, > your tools, the class room, the sun set, the Middle East, the IS, the > Buddha, Jesus Christ, Krishnamurti…Pirsig? > > I have said it before and will say it again: the MOQ is NOT a personal > scrip for changing the world. It is a worldly scrip for changing your self. > It is a signifier dancing (DQ) the conditioned towards…? > > Jc: How do you change the world? - Change yourself How do you change yourself? - Change the world. AB: > It is a sign pointing towards the moon. We can pretend to be responsible > for the best sexual experiences in the world. We can pretend to be the best > celebrities in the world with the the highest status and the most money in > the bank. We can pretend to be the smartest intellectually productive > thought producers in the world . But that is NOT what it’s about. > > Were here to see the moon…that’s all. Realize Rta/dharma. That’s the > clearest pointer of an idea you can get. > > And there is nothing personal in that. As a matter of fact, it has nothing > to do with ¨mine” or yours or me or you. Perhaps that is the most > difficult illusion to overcome. > > And it is the oldest idea known to man. (LILA,p 390) > > Sounds good to me. You may not like the fact, but I agree completely. John C. 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
