[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

Fri Sep 4 12:10:44 PDT 2009

Sandra Abrevaya, U.S. Education Department spokeswoman, notes that President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation's students on live TV in 1991.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-09-04-school-protests_N.htm?csp=34

----

From: "plattholden at gmail.com" <plattholden at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 12:54:06 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ

On 3 Sep 2009 at 14:21, Andre Broersen wrote:

> 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.

[Platt]
You've explained what you believe to be the difference between today's 
One and an improved, harmonious One -- namely that more people 
need to realize a richer One through enlightenment. How that is to be 
achieved, however, remains a mystery. Only "various means" are 
suggested. I hope the "varioua means" doesn't include speeches by  
professors, priests or politicians to a captive audience of school children.  

> 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]
Sounds like a pipe dream to me and to Pirsig: "The ideal of a 
harmonious society in which everyone without coercion cooperates 
happily with everyone else for the mutual good of all is a devastating 
fiction." (Lila, 24)

> 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.

[Platt]
The life/death issue I refer to is the basic division that marks human 
reality, or in MOQ terms, Dynamic life, static death. Our primary 
motivation, as for all living creatures, is to survive. Why that should be 
so is a mystery to evolutionists and for that reason, as Pirsig said, it just 
gets swept under the rug. . 

I don't understand what you mean by a modern phenomenon of death 
denial unless it's a reference to the gap in evolutionary theory, "Why 
survive?".  

> 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).

[Platt]
See Pirsig quote above.

> 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]
If the free market is ultimately destructive and wasteful, what system of 
production and distribution of goods and services would you 
recommend?  

> 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.

[Platt]
You seem to have a problem with people "shouting and standing" on 
their individual liberties against those who threaten to abolish them,  
such as forcing participation in a government-run health program 
employing end-of-life death panels. Seems to me defending individual 
liberty against such systemic government coercion justifies a lot of 
shouting and standing.  

While I appreciate your response, Andre, I find it long on dreams and 
short on specifics of how your dreams are to be accomplished. For 
instance, would you eliminate private property, prevent individual 
inheritances, abolish corporations, increase taxes on the rich, 
redistribute wealth, favor world government?

I'm getting the impression from what you say that we should all live like 
Buddhist monks. I look forward to your correcting me. Thanks.

Regards,
Platt

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/