Re: MD The Transformation of Love

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 22:33:14 BST

  • Next message: Valence: "MD Conflict and Discretion"

    Dear Platt, Rick & Steve,

    Like Steve I tend to value agape/compassion higher than amor/romantic love.
    It requires more of a conscious choice while amor seems to me more like
    being a plaything of one's unconscious drives. You can 'lose yourself' in
    both; in a sense it can both be 'selfless love'. You can also 'find
    yourself', learn who you really are or want to be in both.

    Rick wrote 25 Jun 2003 09:58:41 -0400:
    'I can't help but note that in the MoQ, the patterns of different levels are
    supposed to be in conflict to a certain
    extent.'

    I always find it confused that in 'Lila' different levels are BOTH presented
    as discrete AND as conflicting.
    Pirsig seems to make a start ending that confusion in 'Lila's Child' with
    annotation 52 (published version):
    'I think the conflicts mentioned here are intellectual conflicts in which
    one side clings to an intellectual justification of existing social patterns
    and the other side intellectually opposes the existing social patterns.'
    I'd say that patterns of value of different levels cannot conflict, because
    they are discrete. Only patterns of value belonging to the same level can.
    Intellectual patterns of value however consist of symbols that stand for
    patterns of experience of all levels. So intellectual patterns of value that
    stand for intellectual patterns of value can conflict with intellectual
    patterns of value that stand for social patterns of value (which in their
    turn can conflict with intellectual patterns of value that stand for
    biological patterns of value etc.). It is not the levels themselves (or the
    patterns of value of different levels) that conflict with each other, but
    their reflections on the intellectual level.

    Platt wrote 26 Jun 2003 07:59:20 -0400:
    'It bothers me, however, that you categorize persons as mere social
    patterns, the realm where the Giant rules. We know what the Giant does to
    persons; he has them for lunch. Better to think of persons as individuals
    possessing intellect that can improve life by responding to DQ. That way
    persons are less likely to end up as fodder for the Giant's ugly ambitions.
    It was the guarantee of individual rights as protection against the appetite
    of the Giant that made the USA unique and helped draw powerful intellects
    from all over the world to its shores, yearning to be free.'

    People participate in both social and intellectual patterns of value. 'The
    Giant', or a cluster of social patterns of values, not only 'devours people'
    in the sense of making them replaceable elements in a status hierarchy. It
    is also used by people to give their life Meaning by striving to rise in
    that status hierarchy and by identifying with the Giant and its
    contributions to humanity. Clusters of intellectual patterns of values, like
    science, can also 'devour people' in the sense of making them replaceable
    propagators of sets of ideas.
    I hope you're aware that the USA can also be experienced as a Giant?

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    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 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 22:33:52 BST