Re: MD Death and the MOQ

From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Tue Jul 12 2005 - 19:13:34 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Society"

    On 11 July 2005 4:22 AM Bo writes to Joe:

    Hi Bo and all,

    >> Evolution from the inorganic is a movement in DQ. IMO this
    >> is a clumsy way to try to describe evolution.
    >
    > The MOQ description clumsy? I don't think the MOQ describes
    > any evolution (if you mean Darwin's) but claims to unite creation
    > and evolution.

    Uniting creation and evolution is a mouthful. I think it is clumsy to
    explain.

    >> I prefer to describe
    >> 'happening', 'event', 'evolution' as a manifestation of three forces,
    >> +, -, and 0. The interesting force 0 is a force that can be neutral to
    >> yes or no and sustain them in a yes and no manifestation-evolution.
    >> Intelligence and intellect are manifestations of the same force when
    >> experienced in each manifestation. A law of three! The yes and no
    >> description of the neutral force is found in all the levels.
    >
    > It's some formula of your own. An excellent one for all I know, but
    > ....

    The perennial philoosophy as written about by Georged Gurdjieff, Peter
    Ouspensky, and Maurice Nicoll accepts a law of three for every manifestation
    as valid. Pirsig's three levels beyond the inorganic level seemed to me to
    be an echo of that law. I find a law to be a more precise formulation to
    describe how this is possible.

    > Intellect's STATIC quality must erased from some people's
    > books. Is it in yours?
    >
    Words express the static quality, a mystical ability through analogy and
    metaphor experiences the dynamic quality. I am satisfied with that. The
    origin of words cannot be by abstraction, but rather by ???? I am confused
    by your emphasis for erasing the word *intellect's STATIC quality* from
    people's books?? I assume you are pointing out that 'intellect' can only be
    a metaphor. Is SOL only a metaphor? Uniting creation and evolution is
    metaphorical. How far can the metaphor be pushed?

    > The social level as emotions! Great! Immoral however? From
    > intellect seen emotions are immoral or incomplete, but from the
    > MOQ all levels are moral, that's the whole point.
    >
    IMO emotions are experienced as existence, which is the basis of order and
    morality--will. Once emotions die in an individual, he can no longer find
    order. Perennial philosophy accepts a law of seven for order, higher to
    lower or lower to higher. I accept the explanation that the intellectual
    level is a higher order than the social level, or the organic level in the
    MOQ. I go to a law of seven for a further explanation.

    >> The
    >> order of existence and will decisions seem to lie in the emotions.
    >
    > "Will decisions" or wild? Well, emotions have to be mobilized to
    > have anything done.
    >
    >> Death in the biological level of the individual is paralysis. I place
    >> organic, inorganic, physical (sex, motion, mystical) as combined in
    >> the biological level in an individual.
    >
    > Your view of the levels is a bit peculiar as if there - for instance -
    > is an individual and a general biological level, but that is not the
    > MOQ view, the individual is part of ALL levels.
    >
    I agree. The law of three applies to an individual as well as to a general
    biological level as a manifestation. In this way evolution and creation are
    united as Pirsig suggests.

    Joe

    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 : Tue Jul 12 2005 - 19:17:34 BST