Hello everyone,
>Will a person (or a society, or a molecule) knowingly choose a low
>Quality action over a high quality action?
Will a molecule knowingly choose a low quality action? I think all
molecules try to expend the smallest amount of energy with the
highest payback. I'm not sure a atom can suddenly decide to do
something we would consider low quality on a whim.
A person however can know what is high quality and what is low quality
and still choose the low quality situation. I have a friend who has read
lots of Buddhism, Taoism and Pirsigism. For all the readings he has
done and philosophical discussions we've had on these topics about
what is right and wrong he still can't do what he says is right.
I am not sure what to fully think of this, but I think it is something to do
with our ability to introspect ourselves but not be able to see how we
do things or how others perceive us. This is something that our culture
really trains us to do too.
This also may be a reasonable explanation for how Nazi Germany came
about. I truly believe that from the inside if you were part of it what
they
were doing totally made sense. What they saw as 'right' however is not
what the world saw as 'right'. Just like RMP explains insanity as a
religion
of one, only Germany had those values and I think that is why the rest of
the nations were justified in handling them the way that they did. We had
an insane nation that needed to be taken care of.
Hopefully I don't offend any of you with my blabbering, but I thought that
this was a really interesting topic and I wanted to put in my two cents.
>This is one of those passages that always leaves me with a raised eyebrow
> and an unsatisfied feeling. He goes to elaborate on "the light" for a few
> pages more. I'd love to hear the Squad's take on "the light". Is it really
> out there or has RMP taken a good metaphor one step too far? I say we
> seriously question the man on this one.
>
RMP has really made both of his books a long allegory, and when I read Zen
I thought it was a refined allegory of the cave. I however do not think
that the
halo is a metaphor. It seems more like a reservation about denying anything
that does not have scientific proof. Just because we cannot observe it we
cannot imply that is does not exist. Likewise when we do see something
there
is no necessity that something does exist.
What I got from that passage was that we are trained by our society to not
see
certain things and that we should open our eyes. Don't disregard something
just because it seems abnormal and we're told that does not happen in 'real
life'.
Sorry about the poor commenting job, but I'm using a program I am not very
familiar with.
Later,
Greg
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:35 GMT