[MD] Static latching & faith

[Heather Perella]

Hello Scott and others,


> SA said:
>      Ok, to label MOQ purely empirical is to veer
> away
> from our perception, which I thought Pirsig said
> quality was to Rigel.  Isn't perception of the
> sense,
> yet, what perception we identify called static
> quality.  Thus, my point, don't give up on the
> poetic
> nature of the universe.  I hear birds.  You don't
> hear
> these birds I hear right now at this very moment.  I
> am empirically having that experience.  I say this
> to
> you, and now I staticly put this empirical
> experience
> of mine onto a computer to be sent to you.  When I
> say
> I hear the birds singing, you will never have the
> same
> empirical experience as I, and again I am putting a
> static pattern on an experience that is more dynamic
> than what I am trying to communicate to you is an
> empirical experience about birds singing.  Thus, my
> empirical experience is mystical and ordinary.  Why?
> Because of the dynamic quality that is involved in
> my
> empirical experience that I cannot staticly transmit
> to you.
> 
> Scott interrupts:
> Precisely. You cannot demonstrate to me that there
> is something, or some 
> non-thing, called "dynamic quality". In particular,
> you can't demonstrate to 
> me that this DQ is "undifferentiated". In fact, your
> description is full of 
> differentiation (birds, not snakes; singing, not
> flying, etc.). 

     Sure, and scientifically birds are atoms and
snakes are atoms, thus, birds and snakes are
undifferentiated in this sense.  Or one as bird
quality and another has snake quality thus,
differentiated.  Now this becomes an SOM and so we
move on into MOQ and discard
undifferentiated/differentiated.

The word 
> 'empirical' was coined to distinguish private
> knowledge from public 
> knowledge, and of the latter, that which allows for
> static (repeatable) 
> descriptions of sensory data. Such a word is useful.
> To extend it to any 
> knowledge whatsoever is a bad rhetorical move.
> Poetic knowledge is great. 
> Mystical knowledge is great. Just don't call it
> empirical.

     To establish any knowledge empirically and to
call that knowledge empirical will have that knowledge
have poetic and mystical understanding.  To separate
out and take the surgeons knife to parse through all
this is to forget about what you are separating what
was together in its' overall gathering of input to
come to some conclusion.  Was any of this separated at
the beginning before all the hashing out and parshing
to come to some conclusion.  I don't know, because to
come to any conclusion, as human beings, we need to
pull from many resources, our minds and matter
included, to have a quality, non-SOM conclusion.

> 
> SA continued:
>   Thus, mystical to me is the dynamic quality
> of the MOQ.  The static quality is not left out of
> the
> mystical due to the DQ that is always side by side
> with SQ.  These two are never separated from each
> other therefore the MOQ deals with the overall
> quality
> of any situation.  The overall quality of any
> situation from what I understand will be mystical
> even
> if it is empirical or reasonable because of quality
> and why so?  Because of the question - what is
> quality?  Answer that and we might demystify the
> MOQ.
> 
>      And so the universe is poetic and scientific
>      The birds sing for hearts and tape recorders
>      Have we changed the universe
>      Or, have we changed ourselves
>      Has the universe changed us
>      Or, has the universe changed itself
>      The dance of mind or matter goes on and on
>      and yet, the quality of bird songs sing away.
> 
> Scott:
> All true. But let's call heart knowledge something
> else, and keep the word 
> 'empirical' for tape recorder knowledge. It's a
> useful distinction.
 
     It is a useful distinction when we want to make
distinctions.  Yet, in a world that can be debated
solidly to have distinctions or no distinctions, to
move out of that SOM into a MOQ takes another kind of
approach.  So we can SOM or MOQ, which one has to be
true.  For me, its' the one that is more relaxing and
has more of a sense of calm while I experience without
the mind clutter and chose clarity.

SA

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