[MD] Oneness

[Peter Corteen]

Hi,

gav said:
we ARE the universe because we are infinite and there is only one infinite,
comprendez?

Do you comprendez, gav? I think not - those are just other people's words
you have regurgitated. You have not experienced that oneness. So I find your
statement flip and irritating; it does not take me closer to oneness.

Case replied well to gav:
 The only sense in which I can see us as part of the infinite is so broad as
to be useless. Kind of like nihilism with a smiley face.

Also Heather spoke (meta for it like) of the thousand headed monster of
desire. Think too of the million tentacled angel of fear. Fear and desire
are present even in the amoeba, even in the selfish gene and also in all
that quark, strangeness and charm.

At the instant of experience our flesh is one with the universe and
reflexively it either reaches out or shrinks back. After digestion we may
see that fear of the thousand headed monster goes hand in glove with the
desire to be; and that desire for pleasure is born of the fear I will die
before I can experience. Don't just say no to desire, don't automatically
turn away from fear: go into, investigate, enquire.

Regard

Peter

On 29/07/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
>
> [gav]
> understanding the 'tat tvam asi' concept is fundamental to understanding
> pirsig and the MOQ.
>
> we ARE the universe because we are infinite and there is only one
> infinite,
> comprendez?
>
> equally of course everything we perceive is the whole universe because
> everything is infinite.
>
> [Case]
> This sounds a bit like Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew
> you, And before you were born I consecrated you;" a strange idea indeed.
> The
> only sense in which I can see us as part of the infinite is so broad as to
> be useless. Kind of like nihilism with a smiley face.
>
> [gav]
> atoms exist only as ideas, not as phenomena. perception is fractal and of
> infinite depth of detail.
>
> [Case]
> In what sense is perception infinite?
>
> [gav]
> we are, along with everything else, also PART of the universe. we are
> *simultaneously* part and whole. We are also composed of parts that are
> wholes themselves also (eg organs, tissues, cells).
>
> the universe is an organism, not a machine. Organisms communicate
> instantaneously. they are quantum coherent systems.  mae wan-ho has done a
> lot of work here: see 'the rainbow and the worm'.
>
> [Case]
> So what does she say about this?
>
> [gav]
> therefore we see a universe in which everything has maximal freedom and
> maximal cohesion. everything is an autonomous whole and a totally
> integrated
> part, simultaneously.
>
> [Case]
> If you turn the coin over you will see a universe, fragmented and at war
> with itself.
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>