[MD] A Spin-off; now... call it what you will

[aesuszynski]

Alice to SA

" I can't think of the guy, but the philosopher in
the 1800's that contributed the philosophic notion of
the supermen,"

That would be Nietsche. Wagner's music was also used/misused to further the 
Nazi's ambitions. Funny how that works... ideas taken out of context. As I 
recall, Nietsche's sister had somthing to do with the whole thing.

SA, I haven't thoroughly read this post, but will. I have a little trouble 
following all that is being said. I'm not quite MoQish yet. but that's why 
I'm here...to learn.

Alice
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Heather Perella" <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] A Spin-off; now... call it what you will


> Hello All,
>
>     I did not fully complete with the last post this
> collaboration that I spun-off from different ideas
> that seemed to thread each other in a way that called
> for these comments that I have applied under this
> different posting.
>
>     I began the last posting with a quote by a Lila
> Squad member called Donald T Palmgren.  He enacted a
> curious thought upon SOM, SOC, and MOQ with an effort
> to define philosophy and metaphysics itself.  He
> brought up not only Zen, Daoism, and MOQ, but also
> similarities that run through other idealistic
> metaphysics by Kant and Hegel.  I have made comments
> on the 1st posting that tried to understand what
> Donald was saying.  I have explained what I could in
> the similarities of these different ways brought up by
> Donald, and now I find contradictions that bring
> identity to these different ways within philosophy or
> as he said non-philosophic ways of living.  I also
> find what could be contradictions in Donald's line of
> thinking in how he tries to define and classify these
> different ways.  He are my comments following the
> spine that I first posted.
>
>
>     From the 1st post:  This is a quote from a link
> Arlo gave in his posting in [MD] Objectivity by Donald
> T Palmgren which Donald said:  "SOM indicates a system
> built on the EXCLUSIVITY of S and O (the knowewr and
> the known (consciously or otherwise). But "Idealism"
> is spicifically defined as a system recognizing the
> IDENTITY of S and O.  This gets a bad reaction because
> several people in the LS take this to mean
> MoQ=Idealism. NO! What I'm saying is MoQ is a TYPE OF
> Idealism; I'm not saying that all Idealist systems are
> the same. Obviously Zen is different from Kantian
> Formalism which is different from Hinduism which is
> different from MoQ, etc. They all have the similarity
> that they say S and O are actually the same thing.
> What this thing turns out to be, however, (the Tao,
> Kant's "Moral Self," Braman or Anatman ["no-self"],
> Hegel's "Spirit" or Pirsig's Quality) varies
> tremendosly from one system to another. Of corse
> Pirsig's idea is not the same as everyone elses... but
> it fit's a general type...
>     ...Now this is a standerd way to look at
> Idealism, but I hope by now that you're all awfully
> suspicious. You can see that in my traditional
> grouping, I've included a lot of things in "Idealism"
> (a sub-set of metaphysics) that aren't even
> metaphysical systems -- are not philosophical
> activities. Taoism, Zen, Vedanta Hinduism... these
> aren't scholarly, literary activities. They're not
> opposed to SOM (an explaination about the world);
> they're opposed to SOC (an actual
> psychological experience of the world)."
>
>     Still from the 1st Post:  MOQ is according to
> Donald an idealist metaphysics which does recognize
> the identity of subjects and objects, but is
> counterposed to SOM.  MOQ can recognize subjects and
> objects as Donald states above by saying subjects and
> objects are the same - this is the idealist position
> Donald tries to define.  This sameness has been
> discussed by other philosophers "the Tao... Hegel's
> Spirit... Pirsig's Quality..."
>     As Donald has said above:  "...Now this is a
> standard way to look at Idealism, but I hope by now
> that you're all awfully suspicious."  Why be
> suspicious?  Donald says Zen and Dao (Tao) are not
> metaphysics, thus, not a philosophy.
>
>
>
>
>     Now my current 2nd comments:  This sameness
> Donald headlines as a category that incorporates "the
> Tao... Hegel's Spirit... Pirsig's Quality..." as
> idealistic philosophies is contradicted by Donald
> himself by asserting that the Dao (Tao) and Zen are
> not philosophies.  Yet, how they are in the same
> category (whatever category title one could give to
> this collaboration) is the sameness these 'ways'
> conclude, which is subjects and objects are the same.
> So far this is the conclusion I gather if we follow
> Donald's line of thinking, but there is more.
>
>
>
>     From the 1st Post:  Zen and Dao also do not
> oppose SOM, but do oppose SOC which is an actual
> psychological experience of the world.  My question
> about all of this is this.  Since Zen is not opposed
> to SOM and MOQ is opposed to SOM, yet, Zen is opposed
> to SOC and MOQ is not opposed to SOC all according to
> the comments by Donald then Zen and Dao seem to
> contrast MOQ, except for his comment that Dao (I
> assume Zen, too) are traditionally grouped with
> Pirsig's Quality as idealists philosophies, because a
> conclusion they both come to is subject and object are
> the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>     My current 2nd comments continue:  How does Dao
> and Zen notice subject and object as the same if
> according to Donald Dao and Zen do NOT oppose SOM.
> According to Donald, SOM puts exclusion, thus
> separation, between subject and object.  So here
> Donald seems to make a contradiction.  Zen and Dao
> notice S/O as same and separate.  Maybe this is why
> Donald concluded that Zen and Dao, amidst this
> contradiction, do oppose the S/O consciousness or SOC.
>
>     If Zen masters and Daoist do notice an SOM, thus
> separation of reality, and also do notice the sameness
> by S/O, this sameness would be experienced, if I
> follow Donald's logic correctly, as a result of not
> being conscious of S/O world that exists.  Therefore,
> one is able to notice another reality that has S/O
> being the same which happens when one rejects one's
> consciousness of this SOM world that exists.
>     As Zen discusses readily, that is why practice is
> continual and constant.  Concluding from Donald's
> comments then the S/O world is here.  We are conscious
> of it if we do not practice on a regular and
> ritualistic basis a rejection of our own living
> consciousness of this S/O world.
>     By doing this practice suffering still occurs,
> happiness still occurs, but events in life will happen
> we handle them with great care, noticing all the
> details, but as these events occur we are to realize
> their death, too, and let them go when they do go.  We
> are not to hold onto a conscious reality that will in
> time cultivate naturally a S/O division, because the
> world does have this division Donald says about Zen.
>     So we are to notice and recognize the SOM as it
> is, and then reject it in our minds.  Life is dying.
> Why not commit suicide to get straight to the point
> one might ask?  Well, that would be to reject the
> world that has a SOM.  One is only to reject our
> consciousness of this world and to let our
> consciousness come and go as it will.  In other words
> this careful balance is careful concentration without
> holding onto what one has seen especially if what one
> sees is trying to leave you.  You must let it go.
> Practice and habit through ritual is suppose to make
> this a reflex and a natural habit.  This is how I see
> Donald's comment that Zen and Daoism do not oppose
> SOM, but do oppose an SOC.
>     As to Donald's comment that Zen and Daoism are
> not philosophies, but MOQ is.  If you read his post
> that Arlo linked in [MD] Objectivity, then you would
> also notice that Donald says philosophies are written
> and Zen and Daoism are not written ways though we all
> know their ways are written.  The emphasis in Zen and
> Daoism writings are on the action and experience of
> what they are writing about.  Some Chan monks have I
> Ching (a highly complex mathematical usage can be
> involved), Daoist, and unconcern for many written
> documents (a touch of Dogen) such as Tsung Tsai who
> has been historically documented by George Crane in
> his book "Bones of the Master".  So remember there is
> variety in ways of thinking and practice.  Another one
> for instance, Tibetans hold onto an older tradition in
> some of their themes that have been traced to
> shamanistic pasts.
>     So reading and writing alone is not Zen and
> Daoism, it is the practice of these 'ways' that
> completes what they are not only discussing but also
> doing.  MOQ is a philosophy and is written and Donald
> says nobody has ever reached enlightenment by reading
> Lila so the MOQ is supposedly different from Zen and
> Daoism because MOQ is therefore a philosophy due to
> its' written effort.  I have read some on the MOQ.org
> that have posted that MOQ can not be practiced and
> that would be unwise for a philosophy the way I
> understand philosophy to be, which I will explain
> further on in this post.
>     I have difficulty with Donalds explanation of
> what is and is not a philosophy.  The difficulty I
> have is that a philosophy professor I had in the
> university once said that wisdom is 'knowledge put
> into action'.
>     This definition of wisdom is included in what he
> defined philosophy to be.  He said philosophy is the
> 'love of wisdom'.  Thus, philosophy is not only
> learning idly without any work and effort.  Philosophy
> to be truly making headway must fulfill its'
> definition and must not be an endeavor to just know
> something, but to also put that knowledge into action.
>
>     Well, this contradicts Donald's separation of
> philosophy from Daoism or Zen.  Because, according to
> Donald, these latter two are not scholarly, literary
> activities.  I don't know where Donald was thinking
> this stuff up and what lead him to have these
> conclusions, but I think he's wrong.
>     First, Daoism and Zen have books that use words
> to talk about what is happening in their experiences
> and these words written are helpful and provide
> direction.  Basically Zen does not depend on words,
> because when it comes down to it - you must eventually
> experience.  Thus, understand and know what is
> happening by the experience itself in which words can
> only guide but do not 'do you' in other words, words
> do not perform your life.  For example, you have to
> breath, right?, and it wouldn't be breathing if you
> just talked about breathing.  Understand what I'm
> saying.
>     This just shows you that Daoist and Zen
> practitioners can discuss, but will, in the end in the
> fullest of living, not just talk about life, but will
> live it, too.  Too much talk not enough doing that is
> not healthy.  Yet, from how I have understood
> philosophy, even before I ever met that professor, is
> that philosophy is not just discussing how or what
> life is, but life lived is where philosophy comes from
> - this is where we get our philosophies, this earth
> with sky as an event, happening and being.
>     So I don't quite understand why Donald said
> Daoism (which has temples and ritualistic practices)
> and Zen are not philosophies.  I do notice that MOQ,
> Daoism, Zen, and any other philosophy can be used.
> Some are morally correct and some not.  MOQ is a
> practice, because any metaphysics is not just a talk
> about what the world is, but is also what the world
> is.  The world is happening and full of events.  The
> world is beautiful and has a quality that we dream
> about constantly.
>     To focus on this dreaming for a moment I have an
> example.  As the fundamentalist in the nightmare clips
> have shown, their dreaming of the world, once thought
> up by certain individuals, have contributed to actions
> that steer people into violent, immoral, and very
> difficult deeds that as I have always said on MOQ.org
> the peace we all would want needs to be lived, for it
> (peace) to actually be here, but I'll leave further
> comments on this nightmare stuff for the other thread.
>     Now... call it what you will, but some of the
> conclusions that Donald gave I could somehow wiggle
> them into an understanding that makes sense as to why
> Pirsig has said Daoism and Zen have influenced his MOQ
> philosophy.  Yet, why did Donald say Daoism and Zen
> are not philosophies?  Why is MOQ?  I think Donald is
> incorrect.
>     I can't think of the guy, but the philosopher in
> the 1800's that contributed the philosophic notion of
> the supermen, which Nazi Germany took to mean
> something else, even Darwin's selection was an
> influence upon the Nazis for what they wanted in their
> domestic breeding grounds.  To rid the impure to
> create a superhuman race of people.  Ideas are not
> just sitting in the heads of all people and what your
> current philosophy of life is, is not just in our tiny
> skulls, but you live it, too.
>     Do you want to make changes?  Sure and we try to
> and that's how philosophies live on and try to put
> knowledge into action with the wisdom that someday
> that knowledge will not just sit in your dream but
> walk our walk, also.  What are you dreaming?  I hope
> for our children's sake something beautiful, something
> morally good - something quality!
>
>
> Thanks,
> Spiritual Adirondack (SA)
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> 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/
>