From: Joe (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Thu Dec 11 2003 - 21:57:46 GMT
On 8 Dec 2003 5:12 PM Mark writes:
Joe:
When you compare Buddhists to Christians, I accept that 'existence' is the
same between Faith and Reason. 'Existence' in itself is as incomplete as
DQ. I would not like to say Sq is a prostitution. Nor would I like to say
'existence' is nothing.
Joe, you and i do not share a tradition of arguing with each other? So this
is a first! This last comment of yours is confusing me, could you expand it
please?
All the best,
Mark
Hi Mark, Jim, David M. and forum,
joe: indeed we do seem to share a tradition of not arguing. "Could you
expand it please?" I am afraid I have to admit I am an adulterer! I have
taken bits of ideas from three sources and tried to combine them into a
coherent whole. I may have ended with neither fish nor foul nor good Red
Herring.
I accept from my stay in a Dominican Monastery that faith is a gift. I only
accept the gift or reject it. It is confusing, since I cannot think about
it or seek it, what does acceptance mean? To me it means that I am weak in
love. I accept that a gift, faith, will help assure me that I can love a
great moral order God, and a lesser moral order my neighbor and myself.
I accept from group study of Work principles based on the indications from a
student of a student of Gurdjieff that matter is three united vibrations.
She proposed that each individual has a center of gravity, a brain, mind,
that resonates to one vibration of matter, a second, emotion, that resonates
to a second vibration of matter, and a third, physical, that resonates to a
third vibration of matter. A relation of a strongest brain to a weakest
brain is different for each individual. Mind, Heart, Body, Gurdjieff
proposes a brain for each, and an instinctive sensing of reality.
I accept from reading ZEN...., LILA by Pirsig, and LILA'S CHILD, Dan's
compilation from the Lila Squad that Pirsig proposes a moral hiearchy of
inorganic, organic, social, intellectual values. Undefined Dynamic and
Social quality are knowable. The latter through words which are used for
communication between individuals.
I am in bed with three viewpoints. I put them together thusly: Inorganic
evolves an instinct for ?. A characteristic of the organic order is, it
seeks food gravity or no. I use an emenation of undefined 'purpose' for '?'
to produce an organic body. I use 'purpose' to distinguish a force of
evolution different from gravity, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, or strong
nuclear forces.
Inorganic and organic evolve an insinct for ?. A characteristic of the
social order is sexual reproduction. To undefined 'purpose' i add undefined
'existence' for '?' to produce the social body. I realize there is an
incompleteness to undefined existence, and it can be called nothing. I
resist that step, and call the undefined an aspect of the individual.
Having offspring to continue a line is a weak analogy for 'existence'?
Celebrity, fame, dominant genes etc. are also analogies. In my thinking the
social order uses the same aspect 'existence' which is used as the aspect
for distingujishing a place in a moral order. The confusion between social
order, moral order becomes confusion confounded. Class conflict, a caste
system, police, government, religion, etc. reflect how undefined 'existence'
is.
Inorganic, organic, social evolves an instinct for ? A characteristic of
the intellectual or sentient order is the use of symbols and words in
communication. To undefined 'purpose', 'existence' I add undefined
sdquality (dq and sq) for '?' to create the third intellectual body. I used
'quality' for the intellectual instinct since it seemed to fit.
I use a term, sentient, to identify this three-bodied, three-brained being?
I do not think the three bodies exist separately in an individual. They
participate in the existence of the individual. In procreation and other
circumstances such as confrointation with a superior force, it seems the
bodies do have a separateness and can criticize the activity of each, and
this is my conscience. The moral level is determined by the existence of
the individual. Faith strengthens my certainty in this determination. I
love myself, my neighbor, and my God.
Self-awareness (consciousness) is not undefined. I am self aware. I can
use the three vibrations of purpose, existence, quality, or be used by them.
Mechanical behavior is different than conscious behavior. Love for moral
orders great or small is reassured by faith.
I grow. I am a child, I become an adult. Can I add to my existence and
grow into a new order? Messengers have suggested I can grow through work.
The messengers exhibit behavior beyond my moral order. They obey laws from
another order (dimension). The ways suggested by the messengers are only
analogies since they communicate from another moral level. I can train my
cat, but I can't herd cats! I communicate from a different level than a
cat. I am grateful that religion uses faith to reassure my love. I am sad
that religions have been distorted by a herd mentality.
I have no idea how to proceed. I will quote from Gurdjieff:
"There is no harm in noticing in this connection that the beings of that
planet had another peculiarity which had long before become proper to them
alone, and which consists in this, that no sooner does a new common
Havatvernoni, or religion, arise among them than its followers immediately
begin to split up into different parties each of which very soon creates its
own, as it is called, 'sect'.
The peculiar strangeness of this peculiarity of theirs consists in this,
that those who belong to any such sect never call themselves 'sectarians,'
the name being considered offensive; they are named sectarians only by those
beings who do not belong to their sect.
And the adherents of any sect are sectarian for other beings only as
long as they have no 'guns' and 'ships,' but as soon as they get hold of a
sufficient number of 'guns' and 'ships,' then what had been a peculiar sect
becomes the dominant religion.
The beings both of this settlement and of many other regions of
Pearl-land (India, Joe) became sectarians, having separated just from the
religion the doctrine of which, as I have already told you, I studied there
in detail and which later was called 'Buddhism.'"
BEELZEBUB'S TALES TO HIS GRANDSON by G.I. Gurdjieff, Dutton paperback
edition 1973, vol 1 p 255 ff.
I don't know where Gurdjieff got his information. He was a wanderer in Asia
in the late 19th early 20th century. Maybe he made it up.
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 : Thu Dec 11 2003 - 21:58:24 GMT