ELEPHANT'S TOPIC SUGGESTION:
Why don't we think a bit more about the topic I raised earlier on the status
of the levels, and about what that status tells us about the proper uses of
the levels and/or limits to their efficacy?
The question for discussion is:
"Are the evoloutionary levels of static patterns themselves static
patterns?"
You may already know my answer. My concern about MOQers attachment to the
'evolutionary' levels, as opposed to the core message of ZMM and Lila which
I take to lie beyond them, has motivated my posts from the start. I am
worried about this because it seems to me that Prisig brings the levels
forward as a way of prooving that MOQ can have something to say about
matters of immediate concern in conflicts between existing patterns: which
is all very well. What is less good, I think, is when the things that MOQ
can say about those conflicts are taken to be the whole point and purpose of
MOQ. There is all the difference in the world, and an even more crucial
difference in philosophy, between an incedental result and a motivating
goal. If solving the pattern-conflicts is taken to be the motivating goal
of MOQ, rather than an incedental result, then it seems to me that quite
different success-criteria are impossed on the MOQ, and a quite different
reading of it's central arguments emerges. I would like, in our discussion,
to think a bit harder about the Zen and Platonic roots of MOQ, and get back
to thinking about the real goal of MOQ, which is IMHO release from static
patterns, and not a more effecient re-arrangement of those static patterns.
On the way to release, better re-arrangement may result. But if better
rearrangement is the goal, we aren't on the way to release. If Z is the
confused place we are, P is the perfect game of chess whereby conflicts are
resolved, and A is the reality where no body plays games any more, then A
is, I think, where Prisig wants to get to. How might P fit into this Z to A
pilgrimage? Do we land at P or merely fly over? That is my subsiduary
question.
Pzeph
> From: yummy@netfront.net
> Reply-To: moq_focus@moq.org
> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:01:23 +0800 (HKT)
> To: moq_focus@moq.org
> Subject: MF CALL FOR TOPICS - JAN 01
>
> Hi MFs
>
> 2001 is 6 days away so it's time to post suggestions for next month's topic.
>
> Post suggestions from now until I send the CALL FOR VOTES post.
>
> The usual rules apply:
>
> Please use the same subject line as this post when you submit your topic.
> You can propose more than one topic if you wish.
>
> Please distinguish clearly between the subject of the topic(s) you are
> proposing and what you wish to say about your topic(s).
> It would be helpful to list your topic(s) at the start of the post.
>
> We still have a number of unused suggestions from previous CALL FOR TOPICS
> archived at <http://www.moq.org/lilasquad/pastprograms.html>.
> Feel free to resubmit any of these for voting this month.
>
> Diana
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
>
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST