From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Dec 13 2002 - 07:10:00 GMT
Dear Joe,
I wrote you off-list on 6 Dec 2002 22:54:41 +0100:
'I'm sorry. Your 6 Dec 2002 11:30:26 -0800 message makes little sense to me.
Why did you leave my message to Mari at the beginning? You don't seem to
refer to it in what you write at all.
You don't seem to explain your surprise about my preference for astrology
over the enneagram.
The glasses metaphor you borrow from Pirsig doesn't clarify the different
aspects you distinguish in the "MoQ culture" to me. Therefore your
application of that metaphor to astrology and enneagram does not communicate
any clearer message than that you associate both of them with 'revelation'.
I too, would associate them more with 'revelation' than with observation,
reasoning and empathy.
I don't know "THE GNOSTIC CIRCLE by Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet" which you
mention.'
You (automatically?!) replied off-list also on 7 Dec 2002 22:12:34 -0800:
'joe:I included Mari's message to give another voice to the questions: "What
makes "new" happen? Does it happen when one recognizes it? When more than
one agrees that "new" has occurred? Is there an amount, a degree of change
from a previous pattern to make it jump levels? Is it quantum relative?
And what does "type" mean? Doesn't "type" infer "pattern" in a manner of
speaking?"" Hooray Mari!
These questions were next to your statement: "In my MoQ a level comes into
being when a new type of patterns of value comes into being." Given my
distaste for deconstruction I thought they were very pertinent questions
asking. "How!"
joe:it seems to me that all of Mari's questions implied a culture of
"process." Implied "How?" in a manner of speaking. These questions were
for me a point of reference indicating that a level just doesn't "come into
being," but is produced and I was looking at "How?"
joe:my surprise at your preference for astrology over the enneagram was that
imo astrology answers "What?", and the enneagram answers "How?" To prefer
one over the other was illogical as they are answering different questions.
I am sorry! for not making my surprise clear.
joe:SOM culture has existed for over 2500 years. So far my exposure to moq
culture has existed for 6 months. I have questions, and confusions.
joe: the glasses metaphor was used to throw light on aspects of "how" SOM
culture is primary. If I wish to avoid SOM to see "existence" and "purpose"
I have to look with special glasses because SOM is a division of
"existence." For me existence, purpose, and dq are indivisible by reason of
being indefinable. I need different glasses to see them called "instinctive
sensing of reality." Revelation even in SOM is seen with the special
glasses of faith. Revelation exists not just in subjective and not
objective existence since these are defective terms for indefinable
"existence." Dogma, in normal discourse is hidden.
joe:i answer the question "How?" by statements. I think of three culture
glasses. I think of making music. With my blue glasses on I believe that
the enneagram is a description of the interaction of these da and da (Ihave
no words) in the process of change or evolution.
The process is not just the frog jumping halfway and never getting there,
but also the enneagram and the meshing of cultures. Obviously to me a
damned confusing question. I am not sure I have thrown light on the
difficulty I see or, indeed, that it even is a difficulty.
joe:my brother recommended THE GNOSTIC CIRCLE to me as an introduction to
astrology. I thought it would be a book that was familiar to you. I forgot
the culture difference, and I am sorry for my presumption. I have read
other Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet material like her article SEPTEMBER
TRILOGY - PLUS ONE at www.aeongroup.com. Her love for astrology comes
through to me in her writings.
joe:imo the moq burgeoning culture can give direction to differentiating
astrology and the enneagram. I am not familiar with what Persig says about
the process of "how" the orders develop except by evolution. He indicates
that being outside the myth might lead to insanity. I think the "how" might
be an important question. I thought the glasses analogy pointed to this
blind spot of the newness of moq culture. I was trying to develop a way to
express this by showing that dogma exists in normal discourse. IMO without
special glasses the intellectual level can be confused with dogma. I don't
think that being intellectually certain enough to act from good is
anti-rational, and neither is faith anti-rational, but intellectual
certainty and faith are not the same.
I hope this is not more jargon!'
Please see my answer to Mari of 12 Dec 2002 23:16:55 +0100.
For me both astrology and the enneagram are ways to understand 'How' behave
like they behave when they are not consciously following a chosen course of
action. Astrology enables me to paint a more complex picture, a picture that
fits my impression that the patterns in people's behavior are more diverse
than can be pictured in 9 types (or even 9 x 9 or 9 x 9 x 9 types if we
permit combinations).
Your 'glasses' metaphor for me still doesn't throw more light on '"how" SOM
culture is primary' than Pirsig's use of the metaphor already did.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 13 2002 - 07:11:08 GMT