ROGER ADDS MORE TO THE MYSTICISM/KNOWLEDGE
DISCUSSION FOR ROB, JASON, DAVID AND FRIENDS
Rob,
Every time I answer you I tell my self this is the final reply. Each time you
come up with new objections and concerns. What I don’t understand is why I
enjoy your skeptical questions so much. I guess you are pushing us back toward
the source……toward deeper understanding. All is good.
Let me paraphrase you to ensure comprehension…..Your concern is that you do
not see how the levels provide guidance for behavior……is this correct?
Considering the subtitle of the book, it might be considered disappointing if
Lila doesn’t offer some help on moral decisions.
Rob, in reviewing the archives, I note you actively joined the Squad on the
15th of December. I couldn’t help but laugh that you first voiced your
concern on the levels in this initial post. I am not sure if you are familiar
that we spent the entire previous month of November on this topic (Morality).
The discussion that month was frustrating to say the least. However, if you
scroll the archives you can probably find some worthwhile and enlightening
posts.
If I learned anything that month, it was that harming dynamic patterns is bad.
We argued endlessly on relative morality…where one pattern gains as another
loses. If you are the losing pattern, do you even care if the other pattern is
a higher level ? The other tricky thing is that the way DQ works, that even
acts that harm patterns can have the unintended outcome of strengthening them
(lions are largely responsible for the speed of gazelles)…… that which doesn’t
destroy us makes us stronger.
Putting all this together, the only conclusion I had on the moral teachings of
the MOQ was that where possible we should work in synergy with
whomever/whatever we can. As sentient beings, we should seek out environments
where we can take care of ourselves and our families, while contributing to
society, truth and the world around us. We should try to avoid situations
where we benefit ourselves by harming others. On a personal level, do as
Jason (and Aristotle) suggests and maintain balance. Sounds kind of corny, I
must admit, but if anyone out there in Lila Land got anything more
enlightening out of an entire month’s discussion please let me know. (or out
of years of studying philosophy,sociology and religion, for that matter).
Rob, in the two occupational scenarios which you write, one was unnecessarily
competitive where the benefit of the organization and the employees were often
at odds to each other. Their qualities did not synergize. All was not good.
In the second job, the rewards and values were set so that all gained through
creativity, cooperation and truth. All was good.
Through a combination of the MOQ’s concepts, your direct experiences and your
open mind, you are better prepared to create the effective and dynamic
organization of the future. I see this as further good.
Now to your Q’s:
Q1
>"Who is the better judge of a moral question, an open-minded, sensitive
person or one who is well versed in the MOQ?">
NO, I will not choose between knowledge of the MOQ and sensitivity to
experience. Both is better than neither though……. Ahhh hell with it, I will
choose…….. Sensitivity is better. There, I said it…….do you feel proud of
yourself now? :-)
Q2
<<<<< Shouldn't Pirsig have focussed much more of his time inspiring us to
expand our perceptions, expanding our listening skills, letting go of our
needs
for certain conclusions, and letting go of our needs to think in a certain
way?>>>>>
YES, I agree that Pirsig did not emphasize this side as well as he could
have. Maybe it will be in his next book?
All Is Good
Roger
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:52 BST