Re: MD Illusions--Richard Bach's creatures

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 24 2003 - 19:46:07 BST

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD Dealing with S/O"

    Andy: The division between the
    social and intellectual level in this analogy would be extremely murky

    DM: Well if clinging on=SQ then the social level
    will be where there is a big group clinging on together.
    I like this stream thing becuase it is a good image of DQ.
    Perhaps a mystic is useful even if he swims off never to be seen again,
    others may be inspired by the possibility and give letting go a try.

    DM
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <abahn@comcast.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 4:25 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Illusions--Richard Bach's creatures

    > Hi Sam,
    >
    > Thanks for the reply.
    >
    > :-)
    >
    > Sam: "I think that you are equating DQ and intellect in the analogy, ie
    that it
    > is by letting go andflowing with the current that you become
    intellectual - if
    > you cling you are following static(social?) patterns. Is that correct?
    (It's
    > definitely a variation on Pirsig, but that's not necessarily a bad
    thing)."
    >
    > Andy: Well, Yes and No. I am really equating DQ with the stream. I am
    > equating intellect with the front-end of society, with the individuals who
    are
    > clinging furthest downstream. If you cling you do not necessarily have to
    be
    > following social patterns, but you are using SQ. The division between the
    > social and intellectual level in this analogy would be extremely murky.
    The SQ
    > DQ split is a little more obvious. I think letting go and flowing with
    the
    > stream has some intellectual components, but it also has some mystical
    > components to it. It is the moments of inspiration or enlightenment that
    occurs
    > in the act of creating. Eventually these moments are brought back to the
    rest
    > of society. The inspiration of an individual is a gift to all of society.
    In
    > the beginning, as a small number of individuals begin to grasp onto this
    > inspiration the intellectual level is being born. However, eventually, if
    this
    > gift of inspiration becomes ingrained in a culture, it becomes part of the
    > social level. In this way society moves forward through time--like a
    river.
    >
    > Sam: "I like the thought about existing in DQ with someone else. One thing
    that
    > I have been mulling on recently is the 'loneliness' of existence at the
    fourth
    > level (ie when you awareness functions and explores there). I relate it to
    Jesus
    > saying there is no giving and receiving in marriage in heaven. I wonder
    how far
    > the creation of the ego by the social level (which I see as the 'vehicle'
    which
    > goes off for purposes of its own on the fourth level) is an isolating
    process,
    > so that there can never be a genuine sharing or meeting of minds at that
    level.
    > (This doesn't rule out human contact or relationships of course, just
    reminds
    > that they need to be sustained 'whole bodily' ie by all the levels at
    once).
    > Perhaps the most there might be is a shared delight in the DQ - 'Look at
    that!'.
    > Just some musings."
    >
    > Andy: I think I agree whole-heartedly. I think inspiration is a solitary
    > experience. But if this inspiration cannot be brought back to others it
    is a
    > wasted experience. This is the folly of mysticism (I think). It neglects
    the
    > most important part of the intellectual level. That is--that this level
    exists
    > for the purpose of serving the social level. I think many people who are
    caught
    > up in spiritual and religious expeience and lifestyles are solely
    conserned with
    > their own personal salvation. This neglects a responsibility to society
    that I
    > think all individuals must share. Of course, this is exactly my
    interpretation
    > of what jesus was teaching.
    >
    > Sam: "On the economic front, I was wondering how you might relate the
    levels to
    > various economic phenomena, especially money. I was thinking the other day
    that
    > money is something else which was created for a particular purpose
    (exchange of
    > value) but which has gone off on purposes of its own - ie it is no longer
    tied
    > to a particular good, eg gold or whatever, but is now a store of value in
    its
    > own right, and the financial whizzkids dream up lots of creative ways to
    > manipulate money in order to generate more money."
    >
    > Andy: This mystery of money is what led me to study economics. I don't
    know
    > how to relate it to the levels. Money is a social phenomena and it is
    meant to
    > facilitate trade. The point you are making, I think, is that money has no
    value
    > in its own right. Society gives it value by trusting others will also
    give it
    > value. It represents a bundle of goods and services. I suppose
    individuals in
    > the finance industry are working in the intellectual level when they are
    > dreaming up ways of making money work for them and then passing on this
    > information to others. I don't think money has a purpose of it's own, it
    is
    > only that some individuals are very creative in discovering new ways to
    use it.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Andy
    > > Hi Andy,
    > >
    > > Thanks for this exploration of Richard Bach. I was once a great fan of
    his -
    > > that started to ebb
    > > when I failed to do any 'cloud busting'! But Illusions has got some
    great
    > > insights in it, including
    > > the story of the river creatures.
    > >
    > > However, two sets of comments on what you wrote. The first about the
    analogy,
    > > the second about
    > > economics.
    > >
    > > I think that you are equating DQ and intellect in the analogy, ie that
    it is by
    > > letting go and
    > > flowing with the current that you become intellectual - if you cling you
    are
    > > following static
    > > (social?) patterns. Is that correct? (It's definitely a variation on
    Pirsig, but
    > > that's not
    > > necessarily a bad thing).
    > > Secondly, I like the thought about existing in DQ with someone else. One
    thing
    > > that I have been
    > > mulling on recently is the 'loneliness' of existence at the fourth level
    (ie
    > > when you awareness
    > > functions and explores there). I relate it to Jesus saying there is no
    giving
    > > and receiving in
    > > marriage in heaven. I wonder how far the creation of the ego by the
    social
    > > level (which I see as
    > > the 'vehicle' which goes off for purposes of its own on the fourth
    level) is an
    > > isolating process,
    > > so that there can never be a genuine sharing or meeting of minds at that
    level.
    > > (This doesn't rule
    > > out human contact or relationships of course, just reminds that they
    need to be
    > > sustained 'whole
    > > bodily' ie by all the levels at once). Perhaps the most there might be
    is a
    > > shared delight in the
    > > DQ - 'Look at that!'. Just some musings.
    > >
    > > On the economic front, I was wondering how you might relate the levels
    to
    > > various economic
    > > phenomena, especially money. I was thinking the other day that money is
    > > something else which was
    > > created for a particular purpose (exchange of value) but which has gone
    off on
    > > purposes of its own -
    > > ie it is no longer tied to a particular good, eg gold or whatever, but
    is now a
    > > store of value in
    > > its own right, and the financial whizzkids dream up lots of creative
    ways to
    > > manipulate money in
    > > order to generate more money.
    > > Again just a thought.
    > >
    > > Thanks for the stimulating paper.
    > >
    > > Sam
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > 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
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 Sep 24 2003 - 20:05:43 BST