[MD] Keep on Duckin'

[MarshaV]

On May 14, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Dan Glover wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 3:57 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>> 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...
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> To reify does go against the grain of the MoQ, but it represents an
>> insidious and common mental habit that leads to attachment and to
>> suffering.  Part of the process of reification, as I understand it, is to
>> remove the object or concept from its broader context.  It's often done
>> to simplify a concept, to make it more understandable, manageable and
>> memorable.  The problem comes when the context is forgotten and
>> the definition becomes solidified and more "real" than the experience.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> I still fail to see how this applies to the MOQ, unless a person
> begins making statements like: the MOQ is reality. It is not. The MOQ
> is a way of ordering reality. It isn't really "out there" in the sense
> some contributors both in the past and present seem to think.

Marsha:
Since this is speculation without question, I'll leave it without comment.


> Marsha:
>> Should patterns be seen as promoting "agency" when millions of people
>> are suffering from patterns of bondage?
> 
> Dan:
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by promoting "agency."

Marsha:
'Agency' was a reference to Arlo's post.  Maybe you didn't read his post.


> Marsha:
> 
> And if you're at all interested
>> in Buddhism, you know that attachment and suffering can occur through
>> bondage to good patterns too.
> 
> Dan:
> Well, yes. That is exactly what I said earlier. You replied simply
> "okay." So I take it you agreed. A person must obtain a certain level
> of virtue and detachment before they begin meddling in other people's
> affairs in the name of compassion.
> 
> Marsha:
> So I am suggesting that we remember a
>> good word like 'constraint' may need to be erased to represent a broader
>> context. Patterns may represent a 'greater structure to bring a greater
>> agency,' but they can also represent a prison.  Patterns may be like a
>> kind of freedom, or tolerable restraint, or a harmful, intolerable ignorance.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> Static patterns of quality determine our lives and constrain, or
> limit, our actions. We follow them because we have to. But that
> doesn't equate to patterns being a prison.

Marsha:
A prison is a type of constraint.  If you do not agree with the connotation of 
the word, then you don't.  


Thanks for the discussion.



Marsha 


 
___