From: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com
Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 - 01:28:17 GMT
You have probably already discussed this statement, but I was not around
when it happened.
As it appeared that I had lost msh, which seems to have been verified from
the lack of a reply to my last reply, then I chose to go back to the library
and check out "Lila' once again. As it turns out, seems my recall, as far as
this book goes, was not as bad as it generally is.
After totally engulfing myself into it for the last two days, I finished it
just a few minutes ago, and there is was -- "Good is a noun." . . . "Good as a
noun rather than an adjective is all Metaphysics of Quality is all about."
I also remember a quote from "Zen:"
"My personal feeling is that this is how any further improvement of the
world will be done: by individuals making Quality decisions and that's all."
Don't get me wrong, I love RMP's brilliant MoQ, but I feel something went
wrong, until that final statement. He offers the idea that you cannot define
quality, but then goes on to do so.
" ... any further improvement of the world will be done: by individuals
making Quality decisions and that's all."
To me this is the most profound statement he made in either book. He stated,
as in for a job that had become monotonous "privately" seek quality in that
job. The same would hold true for monotonous relationships, culture, or
science.
Simply searching out quality will create this 'Dynamic Quality.' We do not
need to condemn static patterns to replace them with Quality patterns, In fact
he said to master the static patterns so that the use of these static
patterns will become mindless; they no longer require your attention. You no longer
lend yourself to these static patterns. You have mastered them, and now you
can turn your back on them.
By concentrating on making quality decisions, you then pile these Dynamic
Quality patterns on top of the low quality static patterns until they are
replaced one-by-one with high quality patterns.
The word 'Quality' does not need to be defined, especially by the
non-intellecual, as the non-intellectual has not gotten into the habit of looking
toward others for their knowledge. They look more within -- maybe to common sense.
To quote Shaw, "Common sense is intuitive; enough of it is genius." "The
reasonable man persists in adapting to the world around him; the unreasonable
one pesists in adapting the world to him. Therefore, all progress in the world
depends on the unreasonable man." (Paraphrased; I don't feel like looking it
up:)
The commons sense I speak of is not the one that Einstein spoke of that was
forced into our heads by the Bricks-n-mortar universities. It is the ability
to think for yourself.
Quality is 'Good.' Good is a noun. Good is still good whether it be
scientific, mystic, or religious (screw political:).
It is not science, or religion we hate. It is the use of science or religion
to make low quality statements we hate. We do not need to argue these low
quality statements, as arguing them simply adds to their worth from the energy
of our attention. We can simply turn our back on them, and they go away.
To improve the world, one thing I feel we can do is to offer ourselves up as
an example to our children -- an example for them 'Not' to follow. Allow them
a clear path to their Quality that is constantly searching us out, as
opposed to hold them back with our low quality static patterns. We may even learn
how to look at the world through their 'New eyes' once again.
Chin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Fri Nov 19 2004 - 01:31:19 GMT