JC wrote:
> But even taking the successful mystic's word for it, that this is an
> achievable goal, I'd say it takes a special sort of person to be able to do
> this. The shamanistic journey beyond rationality and into the realms of DQ
> can never be the universal goal of all ordinary members of society. Who's
> gonna bake the bread and tend the children? Our very existence is
> dependent upon tight static patterns that keep our hearts beating and our
> lungs filled with air. It seems to me the best we can all do is stay open
> to the possibility of dynamism beyond intellect and honor those who take
> the journey and respect the wisdom they bring back to the intellectual
> realm.
OK, so I'm going WAY OUT here. What if the ultimate goal is to
transcend into the realms of DQ and achieve a totally non-static
being? Then there would be no need for those static needs (baking
bread, etc). What if it is the belief that we need to maintain a
static nature that locks us into a life where physical needs keep some
people slaving away over the kitchen? Maybe the next step is a
non-physical one - involving the transcendance of the physical?
There are three steps to creating reality: Thought - Word - Action.
Nothing exists that wasn't first a thought. By thinking that we are
limited by the physical, we are. Mystics aren't a "special" brand of
people, they have just reached out beyond the physical limitations the
majority believe exists (and therefore limit them).
Not saying this is possible. It may not be (and my doubt is what may
be what keeps me from achieving a more dynamic state) - Just posing
the thought to (hopefully) kick loose some static patterns.
jc wrote:
> At 10:10 PM -0500 12/2/99, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> >ROGER RESPONDS TO DMB AND PLATT AND
> >OTHERS AND PLEADS FOR THEM TO GO BEYOND
> >STATIC PATTERNS
>
> First, it seems to me that some people's lives are entirely TOO dynamic.
> Some people need more stability and static strength to bind them to what is
> good and lots less dynamic chaos and I know from personal experience of at
> least one person who would identify with this statement!
David Lind writes: Is it that their lives are too dynamic? or that
the direction of their dynamic nature isn't toward the better? If it
was just a case of too dynamic, then what of the mystic who strives
for the dynamic in favor of the static? Pure dynamic quality doen't
equate with chaos.
> Second, "..the static situation is an enemy of life itself." Isn't life
> itself a manifestation of static quality on the biological level?
David Lind writes:
Not to my understanding. I believe Pirsig stated that one way to
look at life is a movement against the laws of nature. "One could
almot define life as the organized disobedience of the law of gravity"
(Lila, p. 172) (Pirsig also mentioned the law of gravity as "perhaps
the most ruthlessly static pattern of order in the universe" (same
page). The biological level has lots of static latches so as to not
lose the movement TOWARDS the dynamic. To cling to the static
produces death (or at least the end of a dynamic flow).
JC wrote: Moral dilemmas come about because of conflicts on
different levels. MOQ resolves all moral dilemmas because it keeps
the levels discreet.
David Lind writes:
Do they? Aren't there moral dilemmas withing levels as well? Not
just intellect vs. social, but also intellect vs. intellect? Yet, I
do agree that the MOQ resolves the dilemmas, but not because the
dilemma occurs between levels, but that by viewing the situation with
DQ in mind, helps us to find the solution that' more moral.
Can't respond to the rest right now - life calls......
Shalom
David Lind
Trickster@postmark.net
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 - 16:03:16 BST