[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[Andre Broersen]

Platt to Andre:
Andre, how will your improved harmonious One be different than today's One.
For instance, will all competition be eliminated in your One? The more
specifics you can give us, the better we'll understand your vision.

Andre:
Hi Platt, am not sure what you mean by your first question, to wit: improved
harmonious One as different from today's One. The One is already complete,
only we do not realise this. I liken it to the state of enlightenment 'to be
achieved'....through various means. Those that have achieved this state
merely suggest that we all are already enlightened, except we do not realise
it!
Also refer to the 180 and 360 degree circle Pirsig refers to in the
interview reference posted a few days ago.
The One will be 'richer' ...to use Reanney's metaphor of the symphony. It
began with a sinle melody to which we add our variations in the way Pachebel
built up his Canon in D. Please see this as only a metaphor though.

This process of becoming will be achieved when we realise that competition
is not really very useful, that we have 'outgrown' this jungle state of
affairs and begin to regard eachother, not as fellow competitors, but as
co-creative partners in the collective enterprise of consciousness.Learning
to see and act (through the head, heart and hands) and apprehending
truly...i.e seeing and apprehending that All is One...a uni-verse... a
single song.

Platt:
As I understand it, the mystical conclusion that "All is One" is the same as
Pirsig's "pre-intellectual experience," namely that ultimate reality is not
divided or differentiated in any way. However, we (and all living creatures)
cannot survive without dividing reality into life/death,
good/bad, friend/enemy, etc. Do you agree?

Andre:
I agree to a certain extent Platt. The value of which is the basis of
Bodvar's intellect (as far as I understand it) and it has served and
continues to serve us well in our efforts to 'dominate' and 'use' inorganic
and organic patterns of value. It is part and parcel of our evolutionary
processes and our brain has been 'programmed' to deal with
these...i.e.hunger, enemies (both in armies (social)  and diseases
(biological), fight/flight responses, etc, etc. (not sure about the life/
death issue you are referring to. This division, this death denial (as in
hiding/ covering up) is very much a 'modern'  phenomenon.
But I think we do have the technology and know-how to make these a thing of
the past, to make them less dominant, less threatening with a bit of
co-operation (in the co- creative process as artists) and not on competition
(in a co-destructive process as soldiers vs soldiers/ business vs business/
person vs person).

In this sense I understand Pirsig's favouring of the 'free-market'...yes it
is very dynamic ( as opposed to...) but it seems to me to be ultimately a
destructive and very wasteful sort of enterprise (the Giant creating crises
at will, whether it be financial, political, social, economic you name
it...it keeps on feeding itself).
Whereas the co-creative forces are very dynamic as well running in the
opposite way: not towards destruction/division and waste but towards
integration, symmetry and harmony.

Platt:
My basic question to you Andre is what do you see as negative about
individual liberty so long as government protects people from other
people initiating physical force -- the proper role of the military and
police? For example, do you favor the free market like Pirsig does?

Andre:
Re 'individual liberty' I see little negative. The bit of negativity I do
have will sound much like Richard Rigel because I hear much self-
righteous ego in the people shouting and standing on their individual
liberties.
I tend to see individual liberty as a way of being able/ allowed to express
one's dharma. More I cannot make of it.

Regarding the rest of your question, I hope I have clarified those in the
earlier part of this post.

For what it is worth.
Andre, the dreamer.... but not the only one.