[MD] strong wind

[beauteak4u at aol.com]

Hi SA,
 
      In one of the False Messiah posts i addressed a few things that you mentioned about
the movie V for Vendetta. This same post of yours wound up in two different subjects.
 
Sometimes i find it difficult keeping "discussions" straight when "subjects" stray too far off course.
 
i'd like to say a few things about my question to DMB:
 
"Who is the pope of MOQ now"
 
First the "now" part.  RMP wrote the books that led to this forum. MD is "now"
i'm pretty sure that RMP would never want to proclaim himself to be "Pope" ( in a way i simply meant
"leader" "originator" "teacher" who is present to filter thoughts and questions through years of living "moq" for clarity or to juxtapose arguments between others who admire or disagree with his philosophy) But as far as i know he, RMP has never been here nor made his presence known. 
 
i read his books several times understanding certain things, or at least thought i did on one reading then thought something else on another and all the while flashing on several teachers ( one in fact who gave me ZMM back in the 70's ) that i've had over my life that effected new thinking, shaking up the static rigid patterns of thought engrained in my by XYZ shedding new light on old thinking both life, subjectively and objectively. All of those teachers were present long enough to approach and ask questions to for clarity. Some of the best teacher would turn the question back on me: "well what DO YOU THINK about that" challenging me to find an answer to my own question using the new information to reformulate old ideas with out giving me their answer....sometimes my answers was not theirs, sometime it was exactly their answer, what did it matter if i was using the new system to formulate an answer ....and so it goes from time to time: "when the student is ready the teacher will appear" ( except here maybe ) Just asking me to think in their presence helped me find an answer that may have been elusive or so static another possibility couldn't exist ( so i thought ). Having them present IMO helped me in the process.
 
This is not to put RMP down. He has his reasons for being absent. But as much as i look forward to coming here to read what MOQers have to say about this or that it occurs to me that what goes on here is just a larger version of RMP and Richard Rigel arguing, mostly with Richard Rigel making RMP feel and look like a fool. 
RR "Does Lila have Quality" RMP "Yes" but I can't explain why because it's too complicated. So RR brow beats the famous author about the head with a moral/value arguments that Phaedrus can't seem to defend against. Phaedrus slithers off angry at RR and himself for being impotent.
Could it be that RMP is afraid that there may be a room full of Richard Rigels here so it's best to stay away?
 
Part 2 Identifying "The Pope"
So now read the posts of the contributors here and tell me which ones are allied in their metaphysics of quality philosophy? Is "agreemnt" a bad word leading to SQ that is not as good as DQ or something like that? If any of you think that you are allied with another tell me who you are and who your allies are because i can't tell. This sometimes seems like the MOQ Mafia but more like the Monthy Python soccer game between the Greeks and the Germans: argue your philosophy while the game gets ignored. Has anyone thought about the game of life? ( And while asking this question does anyone know the meaning of LILA? )
Some of the arguments here remind me of the SNL news skits between Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtain when Dan says to Jane: "Jane you ignorant slut you...." no answers just laughs.
Is decorum and respect not part of MOQ? Is it impossible to as Rodney King once said: " Can we all just get along "?
 
No one as far as i can tell is advancing the MOQ and as i have asked a number of times about  "putting it (MOQ) to practical use" i see no evidence of it. One moqer off list told me that MD is not for "practical" purpose: "practical use" it will not be pragmatic in life on any grand scale.  MD is just for discussion. But when does discussion leave the classroom and effect the social level if not other areas of life as we know it? and who leads the way? Can "Everyone" know when to get up together in unison and know what to do and agree on? SomeONE IMHO needs to at least suggest a target, a goal, a time and a time frame.
Sorry Ant. i know YOU have moved MOQ to another level but i'm not sure if you're bring your lesson plan here to MD and maybe you have no desire nor obligation to do so. Can we sign up for your class? Can you share what's going on in your class in some way that illustrates MOQ in progress?
 
SA: "The strong wind may blow the leaves into a pile,
          but we cannot forget the leaves that are
everywhere!"
 
Smith: then someone throws a cigarette, the pile flares up first then spreads to the surrounding leaves eventually burning down the whole forest while MOQers fiddle in the MD.
 
In all the discussions about what's wrong with leaders the focus is on the worst of the worst and what's gone wrong when where and how. Is that the only place to look for models? If we're not looking there we're looking a microcosms, protons and matter on a molecular level. But what about the Queen Bee? She seems to have no dissenters only loyal defenders and workers. That system seems to work. What's wrong with that model?
 
Maybe there is just too much Y chromosome for our own good?
 
One more question SA about V. Do you recall the female doctor conducting the experiments talking about "the person" in cell V? XX? XY? XX->XY? or something new?
 
We can all be hero's but not everyone is a chief.
 
Smith

 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:07:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [MD] strong wind


Hello all,

     This was taken from another thread, but I find it
pertinent as to what accounts for a strong wind.  The
female in the following storyline, would be a strong
wind against the legs of dynamic quality that could
have origins in any seemingly DQ events, but in time,
would become something too static for any continuing
independence.  Others, not just the female, would be
strong winds, too, noticeably explained as follows:

     Smith asked dmb (dmb answered this question, but
I would like to walk from this interesting question
into a comment of mine own), thus, Smith asked:  "Who
is the Pope of MOQ now?"

     I saw the movie 'V for Vendetta' this afternoon. 
One thing struck me about what a character (female) in
the movie said about the hero.  The final event
occurred and then some other people had something to
say or had their nonverbal moments of doing.  She (the
character), though, said that she would remember the
man that started this all.  The man that lead 'the
event' (I am trying to not give away the movie for
those that wish to see it, but it is obviously hard
not to give some things away about it.).  The whole
time 'this man' wore a mask.  Everybody wanted to see
this man behind the mask.  He said it is not the face
or body behind this mask that is important.  It is the
idea.  The idea was seen everywhere in bits in pieces.
 Little kids to adults, all in their own way,
influencing each other in ways they may not have
realized, but influence they did until certain actions
from these ideas popped up here and over there.  This
man was a hero, and was a major
character for this 'idea' motivating the 'events'
taking place until the climatic event.  Yet, here is
where I think something could go morally wrong.  She
wanted to remember the man.  The same man that said it
was not him, but it was the idea to contemplate and
take action with.  Yet, she literalized the idea into
one man.  That is morally wrong, because it cannot
happen.  The idea cannot be trapped in one man.  If,
social is a higher level than biological, and
intellect is higher than both, then this idea born of
intellect, spread into society, actualized in the
actions of biological beings, intellect (an idea) is
then something more than just one man, it is even more
than many humans (society), an idea goes far beyond
any biological system and social activity of many
people.  Yet, she trapped the idea in one man, even
against his understanding of where and what the idea
was.  She perverted the idea into one literal,
seemingly in her eyes maybe, separate cause of all
other events into this delineated person.  To remember
this one human and converge the idea into this one
human, and to be later, through history, become an
idea only linked with this one human being - now that
is perverted, morally wrong, and also a problem that
people in the future (using foresight) would find
themselves arguing over.  An idea is much more than
even a society of people, so how could it be
consolidated into one person. 
     This is what perverts budda, christ, and others
who lived the Way, walked listening and expressing
dharma, and tried to express something, they
themselves knew, was much more than they themselves as
individuals are.
     So who is the Pope of MOQ?  I hope us all and
more.  I hope we can look beyond any one person and
identify with something as general as quality when it
comes to understanding MOQ.  If we trap MOQ into any
one place and/or spokesperson, meanwhile, other places
and/or spokespeople exist, then we have trapped
quality or any other generalization into something
that could not possibly be morally correct.  

     The strong wind may blow the leaves into a pile,
          but we cannot forget the leaves that are
everywhere!
 

Spiritual Adirondack

__________________________________________________