From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 13:53:37 BST
Scott,
> But worse than this is that there is no creativity allowed for me (or
> for Shakespeare, for that matter), since all creativity, that is, the
> production of new static patterns of value, is assigned to DQ. Thus, the
> MOQ seems to be on a par with Calvinist predestination. While there is
> some esoteric truth to this, I believe, I also believe it is not the
> whole truth. The whole truth is that the little self *is* (and is not)
> the Big Self, that our sense of freedom is and is not an illusion. The
> MOQ only points to the "is". We need Coleridge/Barfield/Nishida to point
> to "is *yet* is not".
Considering the story of the brujo and his creative effect on Zuni
society as well as the considerable amount of text in Lila devoted to
radical idealists vs. degenerate hooligans, it's clear to me that the
production of new static patterns is not "assigned to DQ" but rather to
a static pattern's response to DQ. Without responses to DQ there's no
creation, no change. DQ cannot do it alone. Both static and Dynamic are
needed.
"By contrast the Metaphysics of Quality, also going back to square one,
says that man is composed of static levels of patterns of evolution
with a capability of response to Dynamic Quality." (Chap. 24)
The little "self" is free to follow DQ or not. We have a choice.
Platt
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 -
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 Sep 14 2003 - 13:53:08 BST