Hi Roger, David, Curtis, Avid, John, Dan, Ken and group:
ROGER:
My answer to it (which was not well received) was the question
"What is the ocean made of, water or waves?" It is in a sense made
of both. The base of reality can be referenced as DQ. And just as
the waves are composed of water, sq is composed, or as Mr. Pirsig
says, "derived from," DQ. Mr. Anand pointed out his concerns with
this analogy, but I would like to know if it works on any level for you
Mr. Platt?
PLATT:
I think there's merit not only in your analogy but also the others that
have been posted recently. But, I prefer to think of DQ as light. I
agree with Avid who suggested DQ is an energy or force. Further,
light has traditionally been associated with spirit which, to my mind,
is the common term for DQ. So to the analogies already put forth I
contribute the following quote from Aziz Nasafi:
"On the death of any living creature the spirit (DQ) returns to the
spiritual world, the body (SQ) to the bodily world. In this, however,
only the body is subject to change. The spiritual world is one single
spirit who stands like unto light behind the bodily world and who,
when any single creature comes into being, shines through it as
through a window. According to the kind and size of the window less
or more light enters the world. The light itself however remains
unchanged." (Parens added).
ROGER:
By the way, I think if we use Mr. Beasley's new treatise as a starting
point we can circle back round to this same point.
PLATT
So far I've only had a chance to read through John's essay once.
I'm impressed by its readability and clear organizational structure.
However on first reading I was struck by its pro-materialist, anti-
mystic bias. His premises appear to stem from the standard
scientific assumption of a purposeless universe. And, there are
some internal contradictions. For instance, he says "the" has no
value, yet he uses it over 50 times before even getting past his
introductory remarks, admitting to its utilitarian value if nothing else.
Dan makes an excellent point in showing that from a broader,
worldview perspective words like "good" and �bad" can take on a
different meaning and that what might be considered bad is actually
good for an �eternally regenerative Universe." I believe Ken has
made the same point many times in other contexts. Pirsig
acknowledged the value of the �bad" when he said, "Suffering is the
negative face of Quality that drives the whole process." (Lila, Chap.
29)
A fundamental error in John�s treatise occurs when he places the
mystic experience at the biological level. David rightfully jumps all
over that gross misinterpretation of the mystic tradition (although I
don�t necessarily agree with David�s rationale).
But, by turning our attention back to MOQ basics, John has done us
a favor. I agree with those who say that until we come to a mutual
understanding of those basics, we'll not contribute much to moving
the ball forward, though I'm the first to admit that unencumbered
verbal jousting is great fun and perhaps just as fruitful in the long run.
Platt
P.S. Roger, the correct way to address my eminence is Mr. Holden,
not Mr. Platt. (-:
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
