From: phyllis bergiel (neilfl@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 17:28:26 BST
Hi Sam, Paul, others,
The last part of your most recent post said:>
> I think abandoning 'living being' as a useful term in the Moq might be the
way forward. Which is
> fine if you're happy with Pirsig's idea that the MoQ needs to keep
developing, less fine if you
> think that 'Lila' needs to be set in aspic as the sacred text....
Please, please don't do this. (Rather dramatic, but I am quite passionate
about this.) I don't think Lila nees to be set in aspic, concrete etc. The
reason I object to dropping the term living being is that you make of this
philosophy something so abstract that it is irrelevant to life. And while
philosophy may "bake no bread" we do it great harm if we disconnect it from
its ability to be life informing. I think this is the reason for the
success of LILA and ZAMM. There are faces on the ideas.
Phyllis
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 17:23:41 BST