Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: Phaedrus Wolff (
Date: Sun Dec 26 2004 - 16:34:23 GMT

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "MarshaV" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 6:04 AM
    Subject: RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

    > At 05:42 PM 12/25/2004 -0700, DMB wrote:
    > >I realize that I've repeated myself too much. Blame it on the blindspot.
    > >She's fighting for her life here and she knows it. She is clinging with
    > >ferocious desperation that the only thing to do is pound, pound, and
    > >some more until she lets go.
    Marsha) Who would be there to pick up the pieces?

    Hi Marsha,

    I think you bring up a good point here. If you are to overthrow the
    Victorian Principles, the S/O Metaphysics says there is no morals, the MOQ
    says that the morals are in the society/biological and intellect/society
    morality. If there are no morals in the intellect, then there is no control
    over the biological patterns. If there is no religion, then the lawyers are
    in charge of maintaining the biological patterns; no morals there. :o)

    In the MOQ, the morals come from DQ. This DQ is the answer to the question
    "Where is the common good?"

    The question is not whether or not the MOQ 'can' control the biological
    patterns, but how you mold society and intellect to control the biological
    patterns -- work with the biological patterns; not destroy them, or deny

    "The primary purpose of the intellect is to improve and preserve society."
    Intellect is not meant to dominate society, its purpose is to guide society
    by blending in with the social patterns in order to 'improve' society. The
    analogy Pirsig used on this was that " . . . it is immoral for intellect to
    be dominated by society for the same reasons it is immoral for children to
    be dominated by their parents. But that doesn't mean children should
    assassinate their parents, and it doesn't mean intellect should assassinate

    Religion is a huge influence on society. The Indians, both American and
    Indian do not look at their religion as separate from society, but their
    religion is more a 'Way of life'; their Creator and God is in everything
    they do. In order for religion to become a way of life, or the social
    patterns to work in harmony with religion, the religion must be inclusive;
    it must be open to the DQ of accepting all the people of the society.

    What dmb has been trying to get across is that it is immoral for any part of
    society to demand that all peoples adhere to a religious view that is
    exclusive. The Hindus have done well evolving to include all religious
    beliefs into their religion, their 'Way of life.' They do not deny God, God
    is 'The One' that is so sacred that in earlier times it was forbidden to
    even be spoken, but has evolved to the point that even atheists are
    included; not excluded.

    Msh may have taken it to an extreme where he said we are all "complete and
    equal in our godliness," but what dmb seems to be saying is that God is in
    the here and now. God 'does' exist in everything and everyone. This is DQ;
    it can include intellectual and religious views.

    It would seem to me that the idea that the Fathers of the church will do the
    thinking for you is against even a Victorian principle; "God gave you a
    brain; use it!"

    If God is in you, not separate from you, then you are capable of finding
    'The Good' by searching within your soul; the soul that is has a direct
    connection with God.

    The traditions Sam speaks of are not created by God, but interpreted by man.
    The different religions of the world were not created by God, but
    interpretations of man. (I know, we should have let woman do this:)

    "You don't convert mullah to Christianity by telling them their religion is
    wrong." You convert them by showing them a higher Quality. You don't convert
    Christians to an MOQ view by telling them their religion is wrong, but by
    showing them a higher Quality; IMHO one that can be accepted by their
    religion. I think dmb has been patiently trying to point to the high Quality
    view, and one that will work within the Christian framework.

    In the Christian view, "God gave you a brain," it should not be blasphemous
    to use it.

    It doesn't appear to me that dmb is saying there is no God. In fact it seems
    to me that what dmb is saying comes much closer to an omnipresent God that
    Sam believes in. Sam seems to be working this into his beliefs. This is a
    good example of what I am saying. There is no reason to deny your religion,
    only make high Quality decisions. There is still the religion; just a
    religion that allows you to use your brain; there are no pieces to pick up.

    What you think?


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 26 2004 - 16:48:46 GMT