[MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ

[Joseph Maurer]

On Saturday 31 December 2005 10:30 AM David M writes to Bo

[David] We can only be aware of what we experience,
in all its various qualities. We experience what changes (DQ).
And some changes are repeats (SQ). And some of these
repeats are brought about by us. Language is just another
form of SQ, just higher up the levels than rocks, plantsand tools. There 
could be no institutions, money, SOM
or MOQ without language to set it out with. What we experience
is not just in our minds, what we experience is the way
everything that we are not changes what we are, we
notice change, and we notice it in terms of value, good or bad
for us. Although regular change falls out of conscious experience,
like the 10 to the power of 22 atoms of oxygen we exchange with
our environment with every breathe.

Happy New Year to all, thanks for the chats,
I am sure I have learnt something from everyone
who has posted this year. Many thanks.


Hi David, Bo, and all

I disagree that "Language is just another form of SQ, just higher up the 
levels than  rocks, plants and tools." IMO The analogies and metaphors of 
language are specific pointers to DQ in a special way apart from the pointer 
in SQ. The S/O divide exists in consciousness as an awareness of two types 
of evolution. The language of 'S' through analogy and metaphor points to an 
awareness of the existence of 'human creativity evolution'. The language of 
'O' points to an awareness of the existence of 'mechanical cosmic 
evolution'.

Happy New Year to all:

Joe

> Bo
>
> We can only be aware of what we experience,
> in all its various qualities. We experience what changes (DQ).
> And some changes are repeats (SQ). And some of these
> repeats are brought about by us. Language is just another
> form of SQ, just higher up the levels than rocks, plants
> and tools. There could be no institutions, money, SOM
> or MOQ without language to set it out with. What we experience
> is not just in our minds, what we experience is the way
> everything that we are not changes what we are, we
> notice change, and we notice it in terms of value, good or bad
> for us. Although regular change falls out of conscious experience,
> like the 10 to the power of 22 atoms of oxygen we exchange with
> our environment with every breathe.
>
> Happy New Year to all, thanks for the chats,
> I am sure I have learnt something from everyone
> who has posted this year. Many thanks.
>
> DM
>
>
>
>
>
>> Hi David M (Mike, DMB, Dan and Marsha mentioned)
>>
>> While trying to figure out what your input for me was about this
>> caught my interest. Let me add my opinion.
>>
>> On 30 Dec. you wrote to Mike;
>>
>>> Yes language allows us to isolate and recognise
>>> SQ or objects in our experience, but via habit
>>> and fetish it also blinds us to the richer SQ/DQ
>>> mix of our experience, but we can move on and
>>> re-think our experience as in the move from SOM
>>> to MOQ as an example. Language has a dual
>>> covering/uncovering effect as Heidegger pointed out.
>>
>> after Mike (on 18 Dec.) had written (to Ian)
>>
>>> > Thinking about it, I think it was specifically your "to name it is
>>> > to kill it" that made me bristle. If you'd said "to define it is to
>>> > kill it", then fine. But to name something is to give it life, not
>>> > to kill it. Yes, defining Quality would kill it. But imagine: what
>>> > kind of a life would Quality have if Pirsig had never named it? It
>>> > would just be a vague notion held by Pirsig and nobody else
>>> > (although I'm not sure if it could even be notion...can you have a
>>> > notion of something that isn't signified? this twists me up just
>>> > thinking about it). You might say that it would still have life
>>> > because it has so many other names: the Tao, the One etc. But this
>>> > only shows how something needs to have a name.
>>
>>> > By writing about it, Pirsig breathed life into Quality. Language is
>>> > our friend, not something to be suspicious of.
>>
>> Thanks to Mike there is still hope. What I can't (under)stand is the
>> newfangled mysticism that spreads like a virus - first DMB and
>> now Ian and Dan, maybe Marsha  -  when argument and logic
>> fails they revert to the nonsense about things better treated by
>> silence or "Eastern wisdom".
>>
>> Existence (my favourite expression to avoid the somish notion
>> that evolution takes place within our minds) has reached the 4th
>> level and it is from its premises things are seen and from where
>> the Quality step is made. Again Thanks Mike!
>>
>> NB! I must for the nth time point out that the 4th level is the S/O
>> divide, but my contemptous "somish" means the attitude that the
>> fourth S/O "level" is all there is! No Quality Reality beyond.
>>
>> For David M:.
>>
>> Language - treated in a somish sense - is a black hole. It's plain
>> that "everything is language" or "just hot air", as plain as the the
>> notion that "everything takes place in our minds", but this was
>> what put Phaedrus on the the Quality Quest and what the MOQ is
>> a liberation from. Thus it jars my Q nerve when you say that
>> language "allows us to isolate ...etc". This is the said somish
>> notion that the Q-evolution is a linguistic, or mindish thing.
>>
>> Maybe you make amends for this about the "blinds us to the
>> richer DQ/SQ mix ...etc" but I smell the dreaded mysticism here
>> ;-) After the transition from SOM's S/O to MOQ's DQ/SQ is made
>> everything is seen according to the latter. Language becomes a
>> social pattern that - while serving social purpose - had no
>> "covering/uncovering" effect. It was only at the 4th level that this
>> arose because the 4th level does nothing but split experience into
>> all kinds of dualisms.
>>
>> Happy New Year to You All!
>>
>> Bo
>>
>>
>>
>>