[MD] French ingredient in the soup of sentiments

[Heather Perella]

     I am resending this, because I mistakenly sent
this posting not under the correct subject the first
time ([MD] A French revolutionary thought).  It
belongs in this subject (thread) ([MD] French
ingredient in the soup of sentiments).

> Hello Pirsig (had to include him, he made some
> comments included in our recent posts), Arlo,
> Khaled,
> Craig, and others,
> 
>      Pirsig said, taken from Arlo's quote of him: 
> "The creator of it feels no particular sense of
> identity with it. The owner of it feels no
> particular
> sense of identity with it. The user of it feels no
> particular sense of identity with it. Hence, by
> Phædrus’ definition, it has no Quality."
> 
>       Identity and Quality.  I remember when Khaled
> reminded me of this statement.  Identity?  Identity
> or
> thought, this would be static quality.  Dynamic
> quality is defining or in other words, identifying
> the
> undefined.  Just saying something is DQ is static
> quality, yet, it is the care taken to understand and
> recognize the meaning of such concepts put forth. 
> Thus, DQ can be valued, meaning and care in this
> identification of such DQ values does not separate
> an
> event from having quality.  As we define DQ into
> further distinction and identification - have what
> on
> the intellectual level is a thought.  Thought is SQ.
> 
> Degrees of definition has SQ become either more
> defined, solid, and static latching holds any
> further
> interpretation from occurring.  Yet, the degree of
> definition is measured in the other direction, too. 
> Thus, the less something is defined and capable of
> having any intellectual thought placed upon the
> event
> for identification and thus, definition we find our
> scope widening into a more DQ event.
> 
>      Khaled said:  "...I wonder when I see people
> acquiring stuff and the high they get from that."
> 
>      If the 'high' is the care or meaning that lasts
> for some purpose that is of value to the buyer, then
> this is ok right?
>      If the 'high' is the biological immediate
> gratification in having something popular or new
> without any care taken in understanding its' use,
> connected relational system that has it exist in the
> first place.  Thus, buying something that benefits
> and
> upholds a connected system that is tied with
> dominating biological or social values with no care
> for the intellectual - example: buying sugar cane in
> the 1700's: this upheld slavery, Thomas Jefferson
> was
> intellectual enough to promote maple sugar over
> sugar
> cane.  For one he said it would make this country
> more
> independent (sounds currently familiar [oil]) and
> secondly, he noticed the lack of independence in a
> country that held slaves (though I believe he had
> slaves, so what kind of dialog he held to rid a
> system
> that he himself was caught up in, I don't know -
> other
> than this maple sugar promotion.  Yet, in hindsight
> how easy it is for us to condemn somebody who was
> caught up in an existing system of thought when we
> ourselves are stuck in a system, buying and thus,
> upholding a system of thought that in future
> hindsight
> others may wonder 'where were their heads?'.
> 
>      Pirsig said taken from Arlo's quote in earlier
> posting:  "...being part of the world..."
> 
>      Is this where we are still at?  Calling for
> holistic perspective?  This catch phrase has been
> around for some time now with all of the
> introductions
> of massage therapy, acupuncture, martial arts,
> meditation, and don't forget the Amerindian
> introductions and early settlers soon realized way
> of
> living and 'sport' of fishing, hunting, canoeing,
> kayaking, vision quests, and the age old worldly
> action walkabout or known as plain old walking
> around
> living and taking note of the world at hand (note
> Pirsig's motorcycling across country and sail
> boating).
> 
>      Arlo said:  "...but denying that there is any
> concern (as Pirsig had) for the valuistic
> underpinnings, the foundational metaphysics, of
> individuals in the market."
> 
>      This is the chaotic trying to rise and
> overthrow
> the intellect from the depths of quantum
> underpinning
> where definition becomes weak, appears as if it is
> DQ,
> and then... and then... what might we come to
> identify
> the values as?  Will we all definition to occur, and
> static quality to come about or will it stay firm in
> its' indefinability even though the value is
> definitely inorganic, biological, social, and/or
> intellectual?  If, it is definitely on the level of
> one of these, then chaos has no place and it could
> be
> DQ run wild far beyond the balance that holds static
> quality in place long enough for us to recognize
> what
> exactly is happening, valued, and to be identified. 
> I
> say this if it is denied.  Yet, to lurk into a
> system
> of thought, notice its' ways, and see beyond its'
> SOM
> current mercantilism ways, then to come back with
> resolutions from the top of the mountain, dharmakaya
> light, the dreamtime, vision quest, walkabout,
> wandering in the desert, the shaman's journey to the
> underworld or spiritworld, meditation, and to, as I
> said, come back with that completeness amidst the
> shattered mind that needs put back together again. 
> That's a doctor of life, a shaman to humankind, a
> world builder, and etc...
>  
>      Craig said:  "You've (Arlo) identified the SOM
> mindset as the problem--why tar the free market with
> the same brush?"
> 
>      I apologize Arlo for butting in on this
> comment. 
> I think you would answer, and I guess this is a test
> to how much I know you so forgive me if I have
> stepped
> out of bounds, you would answer with a, I have not
> tarred the free market.  Where did you get that
> idea? 
> Unless I missed something not made distinct and
> thus,
> clearly identified with the use of static quality in
> this general comment by Craig.  Therefore Craig,
> please identify where free market and SOM are one
> and
> the same thing.
> 
> Thanks everybody,
> 
> SA   
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 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/
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com