[MD] Democritus and MoQ

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,

One other thing, I thought Aristotle initiated a tradition in the West of actively critiquing of one's own teacher through academic debate instead of just parroting what the teacher has said?  Does this tradition no longer hold true?  


Marsha 



On Jan 25, 2011, at 2:17 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> I hope I may be allowed another quote:
> 
> "When we want something, normally we know well enough what needs to be done to get it.  But what if the object I desire is something that can never become an object, because it is prior to the subject-object dichotomy?  What if it can never be an effect, because it is always unconditioned?  What if it can never be gained, because it is unattainable?  Then I find myself in a dilemma.  If I make no effort to do anything, it seems that the result will also be nothing and there will be no progress toward the desired goal.  But to the extent that I exert myself to attain it, I don't, for in this case all effort seems to be self-defeating.  This is the paradox of spiritual practice, for as we have seen, atman, Brahman, nirvana, Buddha-nature, [Quality, of course], and so on, are unobjectionable (because nondual), unoriginated (beyond causal and temporal relations), and hence unobtainable.  How can we escape this double bind?"  
>      (Loy, David, 'Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy',p.238)
> 
> I do love a good book.  And I am also more and more enjoying your posts.  
> 
> 
> Cheers,  
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 24, 2011, at 10:54 PM, 118 wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marsha,
>> 
>> A while back I proposed that once Pirsig had written ZMM, he no longer
>> had much control over what the character would be.  In fact, by
>> writing, he relinquished all control.  Therefore, placing quotes from
>> Pirsig concerning Phaedrus, really carry no weight.  Of course, I was
>> met with disdain and contempt for this concept.  In fact, when I
>> proposed that I could perhaps interpret ZMM and Lila in a way
>> different from some, this was also met with incredulity.  Any good
>> book has multiple interpretations, and nobody has rights to the
>> correct interpretation.  There are some that want to wind MoQ up like
>> a watch and watch it tick away.  For me, they are the ones who prevent
>> its progress.  But you know all this, and have your own
>> interpretation.
>> 
>> There is no reason why we cannot modernize a quote from Democritus to
>> help elaborate on MoQ.  Chance and necessity: Static and Dynamic
>> Quality.  Perhaps it is too simple to be true.  Let's throw up some
>> smoke screens to make Quality much more complicated why don't we.  We
>> all know what Quality is, the problem lies where we try to use the
>> intellect to inscribe it.  Pesky intellect, seems to always get in the
>> way of awakening and awareness.  Let's tie Quality down like a
>> tethered hot air balloon.  Must be possible.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>> 
>> 


 
___