[MD] SQ is the illusion

[John Carl]

Magnus,


>>>
>>>
>>>  Yes, I do see what you mean.  There is this huge urge to do so. Have it
>> all
>> under control, that is.  But its interesting when so much energy is
>> expended
>> upon an ultimately futile task, don't you think?
>>
>
> But it's *not* futile. We don't have to have *everything* under control. We
> just have to make it static enough so we can learn something from the
> experiment.
>
>

My point Magnus, was the futility of having it ALL under control.  The
"everything", as you point out is the bug-a-boo.  And it is a big one.  My
mind flashes to Howard Hughes living in his penthouse, surrounded by Mormons
and paranoid about germs.  The human mind, when it gives itself over to this
emphasis on control, goes overboard.   Khoo's video posting to me
illustrated this point well with Siddhartha's realization of a Middle Way.



> Also, I think a computer shows pretty well that it's not futile either. As
> long as it works, and a computer can work for a pretty long time, it *is*
> static.
>
>
Right.  It's static enough for our uses. Human needs for information evolve
much faster than computer memory wears out.

Someday, I'd like to explore the relation between staticity and human
psychological needs and tendency to over-attaching.  Often we need to be
weaned from our attachments and the crucial issue is timing.  Too soon and
we starve (psychically, too late and we become over invested.  Because the
penalties for over-attachment are nebulous (not maturing) and the penalties
for weaning are concrete (starvation) the pragmatic results of the  equation
tends toward over-attachment.

It takes something outside of our selves to break this equation.  Here is
where an idea or belief in DQ helps tremendously.

Thanks Magnus,

John