At 7:05 PM -0500 11/28/99, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
g'day squad, some snippage...
>ROGER ADDS SOME COMMENTS AND
>QUESTIONS TO DL'S RECENT POST
>
>
>DAVID:
>I agree, but there seems to be a repetitive confusion about morality.
> That the universe is a moral universe doesn't mean that what's most
>moral always happens. Just like a parent who wants what's best for
>their child doesn't always do what's best for them. I believe that
>the "morality" of the universe is a structure. Most of the times what
>happens is the most moral, but when events happen that are not the
>most moral, the path that was created eventually dies out.
>
>I still think that there is confusion about "moral" and "what we
>think is the "right" thing to do. (As with Victorian "morality").
>And being limited by our perception of Quality (we can never fully
>understand Quality at this point of our existence - we are limited by
>the intellectual ceiling) - we may not realize that while something
>seems immoral ("wrong") - it may actually be Moral (having the highest
>level of Quality).
>
>ROGER:
>All is moral. All is good. What Ken or others perceive as less moral or
>immoral is just conflicting patterns of good.
I agree with David's first sentence about repetitive confusion... To my
mind, morality implies "evil". That is, if you're going to postulate
morality, you're postulating Good vs. Bad. But according to Roger, All is
moral and all is good. There is no "bad". How can you postulate a
morality without definitions?
What does the MoQ say about "not good"?
"What is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good, need we ask anyone to tell
us these things?"
Thus, "not good" is equally accessible to the intellect. If we say: Good
leads to higher quality; Bad leads away from higher quality, then that
seems simple enough.
Simple perhaps, but my mind has a hard time with it anyway.
Even if I can't define Quality, I can intuitively understand an ultimate
pattern of value from which all else is derived and is accessible to every
person by an intuitive understanding of that which is good. An organism
resonating like a struck gong because he rings harmoniously with the very
structure of the cosmos. Quality being perceived by the organism it is
acting upon. It seems obvious when you think about it deeply. Pretty much
a logical necessity for our very existence. Of course we can percieve
Quality on a personal level.
I grapple with the perception of evil on the social level of human
evolution. I can know what is good and what is not good without having to
ask anybody to tell me. I can understand the metaphysics of the good and
how "I" as an organism can become awake to quality simply through my
interactions with the universe in which I'm aware. I can comprehend the
good and I can comprehend my comprehension of a good which I can't define.
I can also comprehend the "not good". But I have no understanding, not
even intuitive, of it's origins or place within the MoQ.
What I see as "not good" is the force that seeks to perpetuate static
latches of control immorally. Pyramid structures that have as primary
social goal of magnification of ego and exert all energy to supressing DQ.
Socrates forced to drink poison , Jesus crucified by the pharisees. Power
working to supress the good. Why? Because the true experience of DQ always
includes a death of the old self - one has to sacrifice one's ego - one's
existing belief system and that's always experienced as a sort of death.
On the social sphere, the existing patterns of value possess great power to
enforce control over the upsetting influence of DQ and perpetuate the
existing patterns with the few ruling over the many.
By contrast, the sacrifice of the ego leads to higher quality and thus is
of evolutionary benefit and plainly seen to be "good". So the impulse
toward DQ is understandable. But how to grapple with it's opposite is the
question ... How to understand the development of patterns that suppress
quality. And patterns that seem to be growing stronger and more prevalent
all the time! That's my primary concern right there.
I found a smattering of Zen to be very helpful in grappling with the
concept of evil. The idea of the isolated ego, apart from the cosmos and
able to act in it's "own" seperate interest, is the heart of Maya and the
source of all suffering. Desire comes from the self. The isolated self
cannot actually even exist - the "illusion" of ego always leads to the fact
of a death - the patterns of my existence can only exist in the context of
a wider matrix that defines me and when I focus tightly upon "my" patterns
of value and existence,
"I" must confront my own death in that focus.
And yet I look around me, and I see the harmful results of the
technological amplification of egoistic thinking through competitive rape
of the planet, and I see a much bigger death being transmitted and
amplified and growing. How did this Death-idea of ego which leads to lower
Quality get so powerful? This idea of ego which leads to death is growing
in the world. The products of the most advanced tools that intellect can
provide are in the hands of Social Systems driven by the lowest
evolutionary forces of pragmatic politics. Isn't that the domination of a
higher pattern by a lower?
Or does someone wish to assert the fact that India and Pakistan both have
the capability to transform each other's citizenry into Pure White Light as
the working of DQ in static social systems that are due for change.
jc
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:15 BST