Re: MD Sophocles not Socrates

From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 03 2002 - 10:23:12 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Sophocles not Socrates"

    Hi David,

    On this and on the brujo question, I'd be interested in your views on my
    post to Davor, which I sent out on Friday, relating to religious mysticism
    and the MoQ levels. I agree that you need to 'get your shit together' before
    you can properly progress, although I don't see it as something absolute,
    rather as something 'more or less'. For example, I would say that Augustine
    clearly operates at the fourth level, and close to DQ, but he still had
    hangups about dealing with his biological inheritance.

    Sam
    www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 1:23 AM
    Subject: RE: MD Sophocles not Socrates

    > Sam asked DMB .................................................Is it your
    > view that the integration of the levels is a matter of spiritual awareness
    > (however its defined - feel free to offer any definition you like), so
    that
    > advancing up the evolutionary tree is a question of mystical development,
    ie
    > DQ, and therefore not something that can be understood in terms of the
    > static levels of the MoQ?
    >
    > dmb says:
    > Hmmm. Good question. I tend to think of the whole she-bang as essentially
    > spiritual, but if I get your question, you're asking if this integration
    of
    > the levels takes something beyond the levels, something spiritual or
    > mystical perhaps? Is that about right? I suppose, like all growth, there's
    > something Dynamic going on. But for the most part it seems to me that this
    > integration is a pre-requisite for spiritual and mystical development.
    (This
    > is one of the areas where Wilber is much more helpful than Pirsig.) Not
    that
    > such things are the exclusive domain of intellectuals. Far from it. I
    think
    > it only makes sense, in light of Maslow and others, who are incorporated
    > into Wilber's work, to believe that these higher states of consciousness
    > depends on a certain level of competence at all the lower levels.
    Basically,
    > to enter the kingdom of heaven, you "gotta get your shit together" first.
    > This is the static part. This part can be understood easily in MOQ terms;
    > Lila, Rigel and the Captain. Each of these characters ... you know.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > DMB
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 03 2002 - 10:19:54 GMT