i am behind this 100%:
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Richard Budd wrote:
> Hey-
> I like the idea of starting the new discussion from a specific passage of
> LILA and would like to suggest one that I think might take this
> conversation in whole new direction:
>
> (Starting on p.389--- He is at the Boston Muesum admiring paintings and
> notices the halos that appear in them...)
>
> ...It seemed to tmean the two religions weren't copying one another or they
> would have made the halos the same size. But they were both painting
> something they were seeing seperately, which implied that that "something"
> they were painting had a real, indepenent source....
>
> "Our culture immunizes us against giving much importance to all this
> because the light has no "objective" reality. that means it's just some
> "subjective" and therefore unreal phenmenon. In [an MoQ], however, this
> light is IMPORTANT because it often appears associated with undefined
> auspiciousness, that is, with DQ. It signals a Dynamic intrusion upon a
> static situation. When there is a letting go of static patterns the light
> occurs."
>
> 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.
>
> As long as we leave room for Dynamics
> it will all be good.
>
> Rick
>
>
> MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
>
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:36 GMT