[MD] Lila = Divine Play

Sun Nov 23 05:40:01 PST 2008

At 08:31 AM 11/23/2008, you wrote:
>Has anyone come across this before ?

Ian,

What?   Lila as "divine play"?  Divine play, game or dance?  Of course!

Marsha

>Lila = "divine play" - life as a spontaneous game played by
>lighthearted forces beyond our understanding. from Sri Aurobindo in
>"The Valley of the False Glimme"
>
>Quoted in an essay on "Inclusionality" by Wendy Ellyat. (I'll dig out
>a link or forward a copy if I can't find on-line.)
>
>Regards
>Ian
>
>On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:33 PM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> > Andrè and Steve
> >
> > On 22.:
> >
> > Steve:
> >> I'm still not seeing what you see
> >> as a problem. Maybe it would help me understand your point if you
> >> explained what an SOMist is to you.
> >
> > Gentlemen: SOM and "the S/O distinction" must be kept apart. I know
> > it's cumbersome to "dissolve metaphysical disputes..." constantly" but
> > SOM is the conviction that the s/o split is from eternity to eternity.
> > i.e. existence's very base, while the distinction is the said split as a
> > static VALUE (for value it is as Andrè says below) having seen trough
> > its bluff as a metaphysics. Knowing that the split will start to
> > produce paradoxes if taken metaphysically  ...and dissolve if pursued
> > "scientifically".
> >
> > Andre:
> >> Good question Steve and let me say first of all that we are in full
> >> agreement about most things concerning the MoQ.
> >
> >> I am also reluctant to call anything above the Intellectual level a
> >> 'level' in the same way that Pirsig suggested the term 'code' of
> >> which he first says it isn't code and then goes on to use the term
> >> 'code of Art' (p167) and repeats this on p 307 (Dynamic-static
> >> code). To be honest I was even toying with the idea that the MoQ is
> >> not a metaphysics at all (!) but I'd rather leave that to the
> >> experts.
> >
> >> First of all, I do not regard SOM as evil. Absolutely not. This
> >> rational, scientific approach has guided mankind to do many great
> >> things and prevented us from many a disaster. (mind you, it has
> >> caused some as well). Anyway, within the context of the MoQ I see
> >> SOM (Intell. PoV) as a potential threat for a number of reasons:
> >
> >> It has pervaded intellectual patterns to such an extent that it has
> >> assumed total ownership of our capacity to intellectualise.Both
> >> inductively and deductively. That is, not only how to, but also
> >> what's in it. All other influences upon our 'intellectualising'
> >> (just to be clear because this word also has connotations, I mean
> >> just thinking, our mental capacity [whatever that means..arrrgg]),
> >> tend to be reduced to subjective (in the negative of
> >> objective/scientific) frills. I am talking about intuition etc.
> >
> > One minor point. Andrè says that SOM have "pervaded intellectual
> > patterns", if this means "pervaded the level" I must blow my whistle.
> > In retrospect the 4th. level began as the conviction that there were
> > an objective reality (eternal principles) beyond the gods' realm, a
> > TRUTH that even transcends the gods. Thus the level began as a
> > "som",
> > it could not have developed as anything less, only the MOQ
> > transformed
> > it into ITS OWN 4th. level.
> >
> > Thus I must point out that "...SOM has pervaded intellectual patterns"
> > (provided it means the level) is a little misleading,  as if people of
> > old were "intellecualizing" when pondering their social reality, i.e.
> > it equalizes thinking and intellect making the latter identical to
> > SOM's "mind" - a mental compartment that can be filled with different
> > intellectualizations. Phew! Speak about resolving metaphysical
> > disputes at the end of each sentence.
> >
> > Now, I don't think Andrê really lapses back in SOM, so much of the
> > above is from pure MOQ premises, but it's the words' old somish  load
> > that keeps popping up. Also "thinking" is ambiguous, but enough for
> > now.
> >
> > Bodvar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> It doesn' t recognise quality. It doesn't recognise morals.These
> >> sort of dangle at the edges somewhere.
> >>
> >> Perhaps an example is better:
> >>
> >> Suppose I have written a great song or poem...and suppose my teacher
> >> was a pure SOM'ist (I realise they do not come in that way but for
> >> the sake of the example) this person can shoot the song or poem down
> >> on the basis of not following the grammar rules properly or
> >> (ab)using meaning of different words I have put together in a
> >> different way.
> >>
> >> It reminds me of the film Dead Poet's Society with Robin Williams
> >> and the scene where the boys are told to tear the pages from their
> >> books defining good poetry, how to analyse good poetry and
> >> guidelines on how to write good poetry. He has the pages thrown into
> >> the rubbish bin.
> >>
> >> He then has them go outside and through various physical/mental
> >> (experiential) activities has each individual student 'find'
> >> himself, to find his own idea of what is good or what is not good.
> >> One can liken this process to Phaedrus' teaching methods.
> >>
> >> Pirsig has created a wonderful MoQ, for me it is a 'Code of Art'.
> >> And I don't want to see it shot down.
> >>
> >> In an earlier post I have reasserted the quality of SOM. It can
> >> continue to assist us, it can keep us on the straight and narrow.
> >> It's just that the MoQ has redefined this straight and shown that
> >> this narrow can be as broad as you like.
> >>
> >> I hope I have clarified it a bit Steve. I am not anti SOM, I just
> >> want to restrain its potential influence a bit over this MoQ. I hope
> >> I have done this for some of you, and know I have done this at least
> >> for myself.
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >> Andre
> >> 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/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
>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/

.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in 
which each is a reflection of all the others in a 
fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.