ELEPHANT'S TOPIC SUGGESTION: Why don't we think a bit more about the topic I raised earlier on the status of the levels, and about what that status tells us about the proper uses of the levels and/or limits to their efficacy? The question for discussion is: "Are the evoloutionary levels of static patterns themselves static patterns?" You may already know my answer. My concern about MOQers attachment to the 'evolutionary' levels, as opposed to the core message of ZMM and Lila which I take to lie beyond them, has motivated my posts from the start. I am worried about this because it seems to me that Prisig brings the levels forward as a way of prooving that MOQ can have something to say about matters of immediate concern in conflicts between existing patterns: which is all very well. What is less good, I think, is when the things that MOQ can say about those conflicts are taken to be the whole point and purpose of MOQ. There is all the difference in the world, and an even more crucial difference in philosophy, between an incedental result and a motivating goal. If solving the pattern-conflicts is taken to be the motivating goal of MOQ, rather than an incedental result, then it seems to me that quite different success-criteria are impossed on the MOQ, and a quite different reading of it's central arguments emerges. I would like, in our discussion, to think a bit harder about the Zen and Platonic roots of MOQ, and get back to thinking about the real goal of MOQ, which is IMHO release from static patterns, and not a more effecient re-arrangement of those static patterns. On the way to release, better re-arrangement may result. But if better rearrangement is the goal, we aren't on the way to release. If Z is the confused place we are, P is the perfect game of chess whereby conflicts are resolved, and A is the reality where no body plays games any more, then A is, I think, where Prisig wants to get to. How might P fit into this Z to A pilgrimage? Do we land at P or merely fly over? That is my subsiduary question. Pzeph > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:01:23 +0800 (HKT) > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: MF CALL FOR TOPICS - JAN 01 > > Hi MFs > > 2001 is 6 days away so it's time to post suggestions for next month's topic. > > Post suggestions from now until I send the CALL FOR VOTES post. > > The usual rules apply: > > Please use the same subject line as this post when you submit your topic. > You can propose more than one topic if you wish. > > Please distinguish clearly between the subject of the topic(s) you are > proposing and what you wish to say about your topic(s). > It would be helpful to list your topic(s) at the start of the post. > > We still have a number of unused suggestions from previous CALL FOR TOPICS > archived at <http://www.moq.org/lilasquad/pastprograms.html>. > Feel free to resubmit any of these for voting this month. > > Diana > > > > > MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org > MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
