[MD] strong wind

Tue Mar 28 12:46:23 PST 2006

Hello All, 

>( And while asking this question does anyone know the meaning of LILA? )
I am not quite sure what you are asking with this question - 
the meaning of the entire book? plot analysis? 

I do think you have something about the md being a place where some
people just represent Rigel presenting arguments that cause RMP to 
kind of sulk away. On the other hand, that seems good. I mean,
don't you need the argument to really look at the moq? I'm still 
not sure I can fully embrace the moq, I have this problem in 
my head of embracing the notion that we are 'evolving' at all. 
Certainly all species change with respect to time, but as I asked 
the question before with SA in another thread, what if 
we aren't really 'evolving' at all - what if it's not important
to consider that one level trumps another one? Can't it
be more like breathing? Static to Dynamic, Static to Dynamic
back and forth like the rocking of RMP's boat? A culture
flourishes, another culture destroys it, flourishes, dies,
sometimes biological devours social, rock, paper, scissors...
who's to say that we're 'evolving' (which to me implies 
going toward some 'greater' state)? 

I think it's interesting that for all of RMP's knowledge and
awareness, Lila never trusted him - sane or insane, to 
stay with him at the end. I think trust is an interesting
concept when you are talking about any kind of group theory
or philosophy. Who do people trust? 
Isn't that ultimately who we bond with at 
our most personal level - the people in our lives who 
we can trust who's presence can make us less afraid?
Lila trusted Rigel. 

In that sense does intellect always trump social? 

I guess I just sense an odd paradox lurking in the book somehow. 

Sometimes when I'm reading the md, I wonder how much of these
conversations come out in your personal daily interactions. 
How does quality affect your every day intimate relationships with 
your loved ones.

In Lila, it seems that RMP was pretty 'remote' and disconnected 
from the people in his environment (Rigel and Lila namely) and 
they sensed that - I don't think he ever got out of himself enough to try to
see things from other people's points of view. Lila on the other
hand wanted to be so engaged with people that she wanted
to connect with an inanimate object to replace the
need for that connection that she lost. 

At least one thing I think I gather from this discussion
group is that it seems like people are actually 
trying to be 'engaged' dynamically with each other, even
if we're not quite sure what the goal is, which leads us
to another question - do we need to have a goal? 
Can the discussions themselves be the goal?

All that being said - perhaps some of you might be interested - 
I just received some great kudos, a 'best of show' and 
an 'honorable mention' at a local art 
gallery in Pensacola, Fl that I'm involved with.

I'm telling you all this mostly becaue one of my pieces 
that is currently hanging in the gallery is titled 'Lila I', 

I don't think any of you will have any trouble seeing why. 
As I note in my comments, I didn't 'set out' with the intention of
creating any illustrations of Lila, but that I was
loosely inspired by the book during a 
photo session I recently had with a model friend of mine. 
Loosely inspired because of my association with the book
and this group and how fresh it is in my mind all of the time.

The images that also won awards are there as well, 
'Surfing with Psyche' won Best of Show, a photograph
I shot which I think illustrates the exploration of 
the Psyche and 'The Kite' won the honorable mention. 
You can see all of the images including "Lila I" here: 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeroexp/

AND, one other thing - are any of you aware of the writings
of Thich Nhat Hanh? A Zen Master nominated for a Nobel prize by
Martin Luther King Jr. and prolific author.
His Plum Village in the south of France will be having this 

"A Mindfulness Retreat for Scientists in the Field of Consciousness
A convergence of science and meditation"
this summer August 19 - 26. 

http://www.plumvillage.org/retreats/SpecialRetreats/ScientistRetreat_2006.ht
m

The description sounds very interesting and I'm considering going if I 
can put together the money. 

As for MOQ being practical; is ANY philosophy 'practical'?
Whether it works as a 'complete' philosophy for me, is still
in question, but I do know that since I've read Lila, I consider
ideas in a slightly different way - I tend to look at patterns
of thought differently and consider quality as part of the equation
in a way that I never did before, so I do believe that it's 
useful to me even if it only affects the way I personally perceive and
then communicate ideas out into my community through my work and my
time spent with others. 

BUT I do have to say that I really enjoy this discussion group - I feel that
for one thing, it keeps my mind engaged in topics I'm interested in on a
daily basis. 
Even when we the participants argue and occasionally slam one another and
when the
subjects descend away from the original intent. 

On another note, I do feel remiss because I have several conversations
going with SA and Robert in other threads that I feel I've left
'dangling' for lack of time to respond properly, I will get back to those
thoughts soon. 

Margaret

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of beauteak4u at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 8:40 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] strong wind

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 ap
 pear" ( 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

__________________________________________________
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/

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/294 - Release Date: 3/27/2006

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/294 - Release Date: 3/27/2006