[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] The MOQ's First Principle
>Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:01:41 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
>      [SA previously]
> > >      I don't think we can say he went wrong, can
> > we?
>
>      [Dan G.]
> > Just dead wrong.
>
>      Death is wrong?  We all die, then we all are
>wrong, I guess that's what your saying.

[Dan]
He was trying to save his life and it didn't work.

>
>      [SA previously]
> > >This is very sad.  He was trying to save his
> > family,
> > >and died trying... so sad.
>
>
>      [Dan G.]
> > Sure it's sad but before we go filling our cups with
> > tears, isn't it better
> > to examine the choices he made in an effort to gain
> > some little insight into
> > what we ourselves might do in a similar situation?
>
>      Sure.
>
>      [SA previously]
> > >  A good memory for the
> > >family, I'm assuming, where dad is loving his
> > family so much, trying to help them out, trying to
>save
> > them.  If he only stayed, but he didn't know...  got
>ta
> > love him.
>
>      [Dan G.]
> > Sure, gotta love him. Just thought such a real world
> > situation might be a
> > good way to examine your MOQ first principle...
> > guess not.
>[SA]
>      Guess not?

[Dan]
I meant that you didn't seem to be interested...

>[SA]
>  Cause he died?

[Dan]
No. His actions led to his death though.

>[SA]
>You will die, I will
>die.  We are all wrong, you say.

[Dan]
You say I say. Ends and means, don't you know...

>[SA]
>      "From the static point of view the whole escape
>into Dynamic Quality seems like a death experience.
>It's a movement from something to nothing. How can
>'nothing' be any different from death? Since a Dynamic
>understanding doesn't make the static distinctions
>necessary to answer that question, the question goes
>unanswered. All the Buddha could say was, 'See for
>yourself.'
>When early Western investigators first read the
>Buddhist texts they too interpreted nirvana as some
>kind of suicide. There's a famous poem that goes:
>
>While living,
>Be a dead man.
>Be completely dead,
>And then do as you please.
>And all will be well.
>
>It sounds like something from a Hollywood horror-film
>but it's about nirvana. The Metaphysics of Quality
>translates it:
>
>While sustaining biological and social patterns
>Kill all intellectual patterns.
>Kill them completely
>And then follow Dynamic Quality
>And morality will be served."
>
>      (Lila; Ch. 32)
>
>      Death is undefined.

[Dan]
Only when dead.

>[SA]
>Death is dynamic quality.

[Dan]
Mueow.

>[SA]
>In this sense, life is realization of death.  We find
>this out and return home.  Are you saying life and
>death are not practical?

[Dan]
How do you mean, practical?

>[SA]
>  I'm not sure where you are
>coming from on this,

[Dan]
Me either.

>[SA]
>please clarify.

Glass cleaner