[MD] [Bulk] Awareness of Quality

[markhsmit]

Hi Ham,
See below after you input.
Mark

On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:38:08 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
From:   "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Subject:    Re: [MD] [Bulk] Awareness of Quality
Date:   January 16, 2010 3:38:08 AM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

Mark & Marsha --


[Steve]:
> Perhaps the first step is to ask individuals to consider
> if there is a question to be asked regards to quality.
> That is how Pirsig got there. He used the notion of
> quality to achieve his personal world view. Through
> this he then grew that into a systematic representation
> of quality.
>
> 1. Underlying everything is their quality.

[Marsha]:
> Don't you think the first step would be to get individuals
> to consider there is a question to be asked in regards to reality?

For what it is worth from one of two alleged screed-writers on this forum, I 
applaud both of these suggestions. With all due respect to RMP, we might 
also consider whether "quality" is really the best term for our awareness of 
this reality.

--Ham
Perhaps it is not the best way.  But this is MoQ so I'm going to stick with it
for now, see where we get.

1.  The underlying essence of everything is Quality
2.  Quality is composed of a dynamic component and a
static component.
3.  The nature of Quality is to coalesce into patterns
and hierarchies,
4.  The direction of Quality, on a temporal basis, is
towards higher morality.
5.  ....

Have I got this wrong?  If so please correct and I will appreciate it.

Mark




On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:28 AM, markhsmit wrote:

> Hi,
> It appears to me that many in this post have an awareness
> of Quality. The MoQ serves to transfer our personal awareness
> through words and logic and references to another. Once such
> an awareness is captured, then it becomes subjective. It does
> not then rely on the objective transfer, but becomes internalized
> as a new view. At that point it becomes separate from the discussion
> which preceded it. Many of us are trying to impart (or infect) that 
> personal
> awareness, each in our own way. The result is, hopefully, a consensus
> on the best way to impart it to others. It is not so much whether one
> view is right or wrong, but whether one method is more effective
> than another.
>
> I can sense the frustration by some when others do not get their
> awareness, when the relator uses the method by which they
> achieved it ("how can you not get it?!"). It is difficult when one
> tries to impart a non-intellectual realization with words. Some
> philosophies tend to be easier to assimilate. This may be a
> measure of the reality of the metaphysics itself. In some cases
> only a small number of like minded individuals share a common
> awareness. In other cases a large number get it. If truth is in
> numbers, perhaps it is the vector being used not the subject
> itself that matters.
>
> If MoQ is to become a pandemic, maybe simpler and less wordy
> concepts should be used. I see a big difference
> between ZAMM and Lila in terms of such infection. Why is
> that? Does Lila get too far away from the truth? If an understanding
> of reality using the concept of Quality is indeed the most
> efficient method for creating reality awareness, perhaps it
> should be simplified. The twelve steps of achieving an
> awareness of the world through MoQ.
>
> Do we expect Quality to be the right method of imparting
> the awareness of reality?
>
> Mark


Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/