Dear Roger, Marco, Platt, Dan, Andrea, Sam, Horse and everyone else.
I'm addressing this to certain individuals because it links strongly to
previous discussions we've engaged in. I'm not going to make this explicit,
but I will use some of my favourite catch words.
MARCO, PLATT
> But in the end, Pirsig was glad to get rid of Lila:
Too true. Many moons ago, I stirred things up by suggesting that in the end,
Phaedrus was the posing moralist, "slinking off" and leaving the real job of
caring for Lila to Richard Rigel.
The elements of hypocrisy that come through in Lila are nothing new to me.
What disappoints me much more is to see how so many people are only realising
it now, and using is to cast a dark shadow over the MoQ.
HORSE
<<<Most of the problems that arise in this respect are from superimposing the
MoQ over a set of already held beliefs. Once you let go of your old beliefs
and start afresh from a Quality foundation and apply an evolutionary morality
the majority of problems dissolve.
>>>
Sorry Horse, but I can't accept this. Beliefs are no items of clothing. I am
extremely suspicious of individuals who suddenly and completely revise their
whole system of beliefs. When people suddenly put on the MoQ like a new suit,
IMO they are likely to take it off just as abruptly. I think that the MoQ DOES
affect beliefs, but in a dynamic way. People tend to form and revise their
beliefs constantly over an entire lifetime. Nobody should "let go of old
beliefs" because of the MoQ. However, they may find that the MoQ may help them
to refine and resolve contradictions in their beliefs system.
PLATT quotes from Lila
> "Across the cabin, on the pilot berth, Phaedrus saw that her suitcase
> was gone. There was a nice empty hole there. That was good. That
> meant he could get the trays of slips back out and have room to get to
> work on them again. That was good too. He remembered that
> PROGRAM slip he wrote to wait until Lila gets off the boat. He could
> cross that one off now." (Lila, Chap. 32).
In the context it was written, it was clear that Phaedrus was not exactly
jumping for joy at the outcome. He is mixed between sorrow at Lila' departure
and happiness for his freedom. Notably, the happiness is a RATIONALISATION
that gives us AFTER Lila has already decided to leave him.
This is SO true to life. So often we carefully plan our futures, only to find
things turn out completely differently, and often for the better!!!! Phaedrus
carefully explained how a period of solitude away from the pressure of life
(and away from psychiatrists) would allow Lila to reconstruct her system of
beliefs. He may have been right, but it would have been a stormy ride with
considerable suffering for both Lila and Phaedrus.
> "If you eliminate suffering from this world you eliminate life. There's no
> evolution. Those species that don't suffer don't survive. Suffering is the
> negative face of Quality that drives the whole process." (Lila, Chap. 29)
>
> Platt
On the other hand, someone like Richard Rigel might label Phaedrus' plan as
reckless - no real plan at all. As things turned out, the POTENTIAL of
Phaedrus' plan was never REALISED. The reality that emerged was that of Lila
choosing Rigel and probable psychiatric treatment. Phaedrus didn't have the
power to resist this turn of events. He accepted it with resignation.
We all recognise good things in life, but we can't always see how to get them.
Phaedrus and Rigel both desired to end Lila's suffering, but offered very
different roads. In the end, the choice was made mostly by Lila herself.
Life is all choices and we are caught between choices we make and the choices
made for us. Once the choices are made, there is no going back, so we have to
accept the reality and make the best of it.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
