[MD] a view

[MarshaV]

Greetings,


On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:19 PM, John Carl wrote:


> I think morality is served, not when social patterns are erased, but when
> they are examined objectively (intellectually)

Don't you think that by examining many social patterns objectively, that
one does erase them.  Many just don't hold up under scrutiny.   


> This constant re-evaluation of them in the light of quality, is what keeps
> them honest.

For many other social patterns this is also true.   


> But the only way to re-evaluated intellectual patterns, is this thing of
> "killing them" as Buddha suggests, or "dying to them" as Paul of Tarsus
> suggests, in the faith that higher intellectual patterning will reformulate
> the mental etch-a-sketch.
> 
> Is one way of looking at it.

I don't know.   Buddhism, for instance, certainly uses rationality to 
gain insight and wisdom, and to stay between the extremes of 
nihilism and objectivism.  But the intellect also represents a great 
subject/object fault that produces ignorance and greed.  Not sure
what the answer is but I do agree that society changes one 
individual at a time.  

I wonder how was the PBS program on Buddhism.  Anybody watch it?  
   

> But I really liked the dialogue you two create here in looking freshly at
> the old formulations.

Look Ma, I'm having a friendly discussion with Arlo.  Hurray!   


Marsha   
 
 
 
 
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:27 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
>> 
>>> [Marsha]
>>> I think it is a verse written for the individual.  I think many social
>> patterns should dissolve.  I interpret the word 'sustain' to means 'to keep
>> from giving way', so I  translate the first 2 lines as:  While not letting
>> the biological and social levels collapse, let intellectual patterns
>> dissolve' and morality will be served.   Hopefully, this answers the
>> remaining questions too.
>>> 
>>> [Arlo]
>>> I guess my question remains why social patterns should not be dissolved
>> as well? If I use your words here, I'd offer something like this instead.
>>> 
>>> While sustaining just enough biological patterns to preserve your life
>>> Dissolve all intellectual and social patterns.
>>> Dissolve them completely
>>> And then follow Dynamic Quality
>>> And morality will be served.
>> 
>> 
>> I have no problem with the importance of the family and
>> community in sustaining life.  I have never said otherwise.
>> But I do think that many social patterns have outgrown their
>> usefulness.  A long time ago I read 'The Social Construction
>> of Reality', by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann.  It
>> address such issues.  I bet you've read it.
>> 
>> 
>>> The first line I can see, because dying while meditating or taking peyote
>> will likely do you no good.
>> 
>> It's Saint Marsha.  I do not drink, smoke, or take drugs, not
>> even the prescribed type.  This is not an issue for me.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> But the second line I'd propose makes more sense (considering, again,
>> Pirsig's view on the morality of the hippie movement), if we say that in
>> that drive to get to the Zero-Point, we let all static patterns that may
>> effect our ability to see "something new" pass away. Social patterns like
>> religion must be left go off as well, as should social roles like what it
>> means to be a mother or uncle. All preconceived notions (patterns) that
>> effect our "vision" should be left to dissolve away (I do like that
>> metaphor).
>> 
>> This dissolution I think is for the moment.  I am not talking of a
>> lobotomy.
>> There might be a moment when an intellectual pattern is very appropriate,
>> if so I'm quite sure it will prevail.   The rest of your paragraph seem
>> presented for the sake of the argument, but I think such speculation is
>> a waste of time.  It would be better to be mindful of the flow of patterns,
>> than to let the flow of patterns control the situation.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> And, like I mentioned, it makes this statement true for all people, not
>> just those with "relaxed" social codes.
>>> 
>>> The next question would be, "And then what?" What do we do when we come
>> out of the Zero-Point, after we've been effected by some Dynamic insight?
>> I'd submit we re-construct our social and intellectual patterns accordingly.
>> "Killing" them may take us to that moment of Zen, but its what we do with
>> enlightenment coming back that makes it count. IMHO.
>> 
>> This seems like too much speculation.  What if you awaken and realize that
>> when you do harm, it is yourself you are harming?  What if you begin to see
>> their is no separation between you and I.   What if we discover that our
>> present
>> subject/object ideas of reality are nonsense?  I, at least, like my
>> speculations
>> better.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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/md/archives.html
>> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___