Roger, Platt, Rick, others,
I have been away for a week, and so came back to over 100 MOQ emails. And
this is one of my concerns about the process. Obviously it is good to come
to some sort of closure, which is what your summary, Roger, (very
competently) offers. But equally I would suggest that real thought about an
issue may take a little more time. I notice there have been some good inputs
since your summary, which you have offered to include in yet another
summary. Which is great. But it does reinforce the question of when to draw
a line in the sand and say this debate is closed.
You have chosen to take on the moderation of this topic, so in my opinion it
is up to you when you wish to declare your involvement closed. As you have
repeatedly pointed out, anyone is free to pick up on the topic and moderate
any subsequent input.
>From my point of view, I probably could respond to your repeated challenge
"A spin off conversation involved a number of people, including DAVOR, CLAY
and JOHN, who argued that death, destruction and decay CAN be of high
quality. They gave numerous examples. However, ROGER countered each of
these and suggested that in every case people were either confusing
destruction with flexibility and adaptiveness, or they were citing examples
of circular processes where destruction was leading to reconstruction, and
that it was the reconstruction which they saw as good. RICK and MARCO
agreed with him, but those originally espousing this view never responded
(at least
conclusively) to the counter."
Probably I have not because it indeed seems to me a "spin off", rather than
the main issue, and probably a matter of definition or semantics rather than
a real issue. But I could be wrong. Certainly I would need more time to
respond to this.
Your summary: "patterns of higher quality achieve a Dynamic/static balance,
and ... the way to find this balance is by attuning one's self to the
broader universe." is fair enough, but less than exciting, in my view. I
would want to change the words 'attuning one's self' to 'attending', and
bring in the whole question of praxis, of 'how' one attends, and how one
discriminates the 'real' broader universe from the fantasised broader
universe each of us can (and does) construct.
I also found Platt's challenge very powerful indeed. PLATT: ". . . I asked
myself if there was something there that would prevent a good Nazi from
agreeing with it. Unfortunately, I couldn't." I find myself in broad
agreement with Platt on this point. It is, though, the biggest issue that I
have with the mystic responses which Platt than goes on to quote. How do
they stand up to his 'Nazi Test'?
Platt quoted Wilber as follows "This is really all there is to contemplative
mysticism--to be aware without judgment or comment of what is actually
happening at this moment, both outside ourselves and within, listening even
to our
involuntary thoughts as if there were no more than the sound of rain."
I find this (in my unliberated state) a bit too passive for my liking, but
the word 'actually' rescues it, to some extent, and again points to
separating the actual from the fantasy. Yes, Platt, I too find it hard to
imagine any Nazi actually bothering with awareness, but does this help with
the issue you have quite appropriately raised. A good Nazi may not bother
with awareness, but may not disagree with it either. (Perhaps like prayer?)
This is, it seems to me, the same issue that led Pirsig to leave Benares
Hindu University, and if I remember correctly he had no clear conclusion on
the matter, but he just gave up. This also overlaps with another strand in
the current MD debates, where Rick, I think, is arguing very cogently that
if Good is a noun, and only what has quality can be discriminated, then
everything is good, including Hitler and the gas chambers and Hiroshima, and
the word 'good' becomes meaningless. As I read the mystics they are indeed
saying that once I am 'liberated' I will see everything as good and as it
must be, and so forget about the cruelties that I have previously opposed.
They are just Quality unfolding as it should.
So I agree that Platt has raised a very powerful objection to the conclusion
that you have so far developed, Roger, but I doubt that his mystic response
will solve it. Is this taking the debate in a totally new direction, or just
a red herring, or is it a valid rejection of a premature closure?
So, to your request, two responses. I would need more time to complete my
input into the original question, and, secondly, I think Platt's challenge
does invalidate the rather bland conclusion we have so far arrived at.
John B
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 - 16:01:46 BST