From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Thu Aug 04 2005 - 03:08:41 BST
Mark Steven Heyman wrote:
>Hi Paul, Scott, David H, and all,
>
>
>On 2 Aug 2005 at 20:36, David Harding wrote:
>
>Paul Turner wrote:
>
>
>>Scott, MSH,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Scott:
>>>If we actually did do nothing, things would not stay just the way they are.
>>>That is the message of the Tao Te Ching. The road to hell is paved with
>>>good
>>>intentions, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>Scott:
>>>The problem is that you do not seem to realize that you are part of the
>>>problem. As am I, and as are we all. But -- or so I flatter myself in so
>>>thinking -- to recognize that one is part of the problem is the first step
>>>in ceasing to be so.
>>>
>>>msh 08-01-05:
>>>Ok. Then what's the second step?
>>>
>>>See, this is the kind of one-hand-clapping nonsense that leads to the
>>>religion of do nothing and things will get better. I guess it works
>>>great if you're in the boot with the iron heel, or if the heel comes
>>>down in someone else's neighborhood. Now, imagine yourself beneath
>>>the heel, then lecture us about what we should do.
>>>
>>>
>>Paul: As I understand it, Mark, Scott has misinterpreted the term - wu wei
>>- or at least, hasn't elaborated on what he means by do-nothing. The Taoist
>>wu wei principle refers to behaviour motivated by a sense of oneself as
>>connected to everything else i.e. not motivated by a sense of fundamental
>>separateness or by the selfish ego. It is operating with a sense of dharma,
>>which, of course, is what Pirsig identifies with Quality in ZMM. When one
>>is working with Quality instead of against it, activity can seem effortless,
>>which is what wu-wei is perhaps better translated as meaning. It is nothing
>>to do with apathy or mere passivity.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>
>>
>
>msh 8-03-05:
>I guess what I'm trying to find out is in what way you (Paul and
>Scott, and I guess David agrees) see Arlo and I acting without a
>sense of Quality? Is there something specific you can point to,
>which allows you to say that what we're doing, or saying, violates
>the Taoist wu wei principle?
>
Yes, and the answer is in the following sentence.
>That is, how have you arrived at the
>conclusion that we are not "motivated by a sense of oneself as
>connected to everything else," i.e. that we are "motivated by a
>sense of fundamental separateness or by the selfish ego."
>
>
Mark,
Simply because your motivated by one, who ever said it means your not
motivated by the other? Good is a noun, man can't help but define
things with his ego, there isn't a man alive who hasn't defined
something. Thats what Lila was all about, the mystics like to say
nothing, but that's impossible, picking up bar ladies and writing
metaphysics is a part of life but Dynamic Quality still *is* fundamental. .
Yourself, Arlo, me and everyone else is motivated by a sense of
fundamental separateness, or by the selfish ego. Only is it by
recognising this and then travelling the long path to englightenment, by
learning to understand and control this self can we slowly be more and
more 'motivated by a sense of oneself as connected to everything else'.
This is what Scott was saying. The first step is to recognise we're
egotistic by our very nature.
So to answer your question - for the simple reason that you do not
recognise you are motivated by the ego.
-David
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 : Thu Aug 04 2005 - 04:17:20 BST