[MD] Keep on Duckin'

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:15 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> On May 13, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:08 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dan,
>>>
>>> On May 13, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello everyone
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:28 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 13, 2011, at 1:09 AM, Dan Glover wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello everyone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:11 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dmb says:
>>>>>>> Well, I suppose it's futile to try to talk sense with a person with thinks static patterns of quality are both ever-changing AND a kind of prison. It's a cage made of clouds, apparently. It's like trying to discuss water with someone who thinks ice is hot and steamy. Even Sarah Palin would blush at this level of incoherence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the MOQ, static patterns are not a prison. They are the world as we know it, arranged in an evolutionary moral hierarchy. They are static patterns of VALUE, of QUALITY.
>>>>>>> Marsha had said:I not only agree with Mark that language is a kind of prison, but I also think patterns are a kind of prison."To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." [LILA}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> I don't think it's right to say patterns are a kind of prison, or
>>>>>> language for that matter. Language and patterns are useful for
>>>>>> rationally sharing our sense of experience. I think the above quote is
>>>>>> being taken out of context.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>> I do agree that language and patterns are useful for all sorts of
>>>>> reasons.  I think I've said this many times.  I'm a conventional
>>>>> woman and find them very useful..  If 'prison' is too strong a word
>>>>> for you, perhaps 'cage' would be a better choice?  I meant 'prison'
>>>>> in the sense of 'constraint.'  But maybe you can find a word you like
>>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>>
>>>> I prefer the definition of constraint as a limitation; it seems better
>>>> than the terms cage and prison.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha:
>>> Thanks for the feedback.  To you, words and patterns might be just a
>>> constraint, to others, words and patterns may represent a prison.  The
>>> determination to which word might be more appropriate may lie within
>>> the context.
>>
>> Dan:
>> You're welcome, and thank you too. I assumed the context of which we
>> were speaking was the framework of the MOQ. If that is not the case,
>> then yes, perhaps you are right.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Dan
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> I AM a conventional woman, but even without a television I know that
> all over the world there are people enslaved by horrendous patterns.

Dan:

Yes, if everything is an ethical activity as the MOQ suggests, then
compassion for others naturally arises as we gain insight. I would
caution though that unless a person has obtained a high degree of
virtue and detachment that the compassion they feel may be misplaced
or misunderstood.

Marsha:
> With some insight we here on the MD can begin to destroy the patterns
> of entrapment, and appreciate and strengthen to good ones, but many
> people have no clue.

Dan:

I am unsure that a discussion group is the proper setting for such
activities. If a person is ready, doors will open.

>Marsha:
> The MoQ has been reified when it is held within a strict framework.

Dan:
The Metaphysics of Quality is a metaphysics. As such, it has
parameters that serve as a framework through which we can order
experience. It isn't set in concrete; it is written in pencil rather
than pen. In fact, to reify a concept seems to go against the grain of
the MOQ. Not sure what you're getting at by using that word...

Thank you,

Dan