To: Bard
From: Rog
BARD: And while I respect your
approach, there are many in the world, myself included, who believe that
outcome is less important than process. A tribute to Pirsig's writings is
that he speaks to both camps simultaneously. In Taoism, Buddhism, and Zen,
there really is no concept of good and evil, so destruction is indeed
relative. Rather, there is wrong thinking and right thinking. There is a
moral approach to a situation and one that is poor in spirit and therefore
in need of guidance. There is no single act that is a sin or immoral, but
rather actions that stem from wrong thinking and, as a result, are foolishly
without harmony. The process of acting in harmony with the whole and with
minimal selfish desire is our goal, and it is believed that outcome from
such an approach is always of value, regardless of whether it is immediately
apparent or not. In the West this is called Faith. LILA begins with a man
who has experienced a satori, true. but who has no faith and little
compassion. It ends with a man who understands that all he can possibly do
is be true to his beliefs and take responsibility for his actions and
thereby his creations.
ROG: Wow! Interesting perspective. I see much of value in it and I thank
you for sharing it. I think the "harmony with the whole" matches well with
what John was calling quality across span and depth. I am still reluctant to
take a leap that good intentions/compassion will always lead to good results,
but they are certainly the first place I would look. I will hope to glean
more wisdom from you in this approach in the future.
BARD: I tried to be careful not to use the terms "good intentions" or "bad
intentions" in order to avoid the trivialization of such concepts as is
evident in such phrases as "the road to Hell is paved with..." However one
might replace intent with motivation. Even in the Western Judeo-Christian
faith, to be without covetousness is a tenet. In some sects, it represents
two separate tenets. Isn't covetousness an intent?
ROG: Covetousness is a cup that demands infinite refills.
BARD: I continue to be open to all possibilities, when not categorically
disproved
by science, so I am intrigued whether or not cells have the capacity for
intent. I will reread some of the past posts by our colleagues regarding
cells and their awareness to aid me in this quest for truth.
ROG: My view is that awareness and intention and consciousness etc are
slippery concepts along the fringes. We know what they are when they are
obvious, but there are shades of ambiguity where each of us draws our own
distinctions. A sleeping person is less aware than an awake person, but more
aware than a tree, which is more aware than a cell, which is more aware than
a protien. Where do each of us draw the line and no longer call it
awareness? Where does real intent begin? Some questions are better
understood than answered.
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:42 BST