At 09:46 AM 5/12/2007, you wrote: >Hello Marsha, > > >Marsha: > >Does the MoQ exist as an object separate from the multiple versions > >of Pirsig's original idea held in the constellations of SPoV that > > represent individuals? > >Kevin: >I don't understand what you're saying. Can you break this down for me? >Are you saying the MoQ does not exist objectively?
The MoQ exists as us. Each and every one of us (others too) carry the MoQ as a part of ourselves. Mr. Pirsig gave us a gift and we are in various patterns of manifesting it. I do not believe it exists objectively. When I say us, I mean individuals, which to me means an everchanging, constellation of overlapping static patterns of value. > > > Marsha: > >I don't think so. Even if it were chiseled in marble, there would be > > different interpretations, different understandings, different situations. > >Kevin: >Right. The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon. The MoQ points to >Quality. And we point to the MoQ. But we also point to Quality. So the >MoQ is one of many fingers pointing to Quality. And so if the MoQ is to >mean anything to anybody it must differentiate itself from the other pointing >fingers, road maps and signs and say this is this and that is that. And it >does. It says Quality is the source of everything and objective >reality is like >a hierarchy of four discrete levels - inorganic, biological, social and >intellectual - where information is directional moving from higher levels to >lower levels. Recently it came to may attention that some little creatures, that hatch from eggs, have a little sharp tooth to help them crack the egg to obtain their freedom. That has been the MoQ for me. It started my shell a crackin'. Of course I have received many gifts, but the MoQ was the key. I think of the hierarchetical structure (the 4 levels) also as a key. It helps to transform the old way of thinking (subject/object) into the new way of thinking (Quality). The levels are like a Rosetta Stone. > > > Marsha: > >I think that would be true between a multiple of individuals, and within one > > individual over a period of time. To me, static doesn't mean absolutely > > rigid. > >Ron: >I'd go so far to say that which is static is an illusion. Dynamic >is all there >really is. And I'd say that this perspective is consistent with the MoQ. Someone on this list suggested static meant change that was slow enough to experience it. That seems right. > > > Marsha > >So how do you experience your emotions? > >Ron: >In my body, in my mind and beyond my feelings and thoughts. At the start >of a 9 mile hike last Sunday I felt the joy of being among friends, nature's >beauty and the warmth of the sun. > > >Marsha > >How do emotions move your mind? > >Ron: >I agree with Tolle. I am not my thoughts or my feelings or my body or my >intellect. My thoughts and my feelings and my body and my intellect >inform me who I am but they do not define me. For me, what defines me >are my relationships. It's probably varying degrees of different for each of us. > > >Marsha > >It seems to me it's not so much what the MoQ states, as it is > > how emotions vibrate the individual. Has your understanding of the > > MoQ altered your emotional experience (all, or some)? > >Ron: > From one of the more prominent perspectives in my life a better question >would be, have I been affected in my search to find meaning in the MoQ? >The answer would have to be yes. But I don't credit or blame the MoQ. >Again, I am defined by my relationships. What would it mean to have a >relationship with a concept? Love, I think mostly that's what we have, concepts, valuable concepts. > >Marsha: > > If there's been a change, has it been for the 'better'? > >Ron: >Better for me? It's all good. > > > Marsha: > >Are these legitimate questions to ask oneself about the MOQ? Is it a > > world view, or philosophy, that improves the quality of your life? My > > answer is YES, most definitely yes. > >Ron: >I can appreciate and respect your perspective. For me the MoQ is one of >many perspectives for finding meaning and making sense of the world, >ourselves, our relationships and life. It's good. But I don't >consider it the >best. > For me, like a key, all the little couplets (is that the correct word) started to fall into place. ZAMM and LILA were like a big illumination. There was for a while lots of re-evalutation. Now there is less re-evaluation and more dancing. And she whirl and she twirl and she tangos. Marsha 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
