[MD] Static latching & faith

[Heather Perella]

Hello Scott and others,

> > Scott said:
> > All true. But let's call heart knowledge something
> > else, and keep the word
> > 'empirical' for tape recorder knowledge. It's a
> > useful distinction.
> 
>  SA said:
>     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.
> 
> Scott:
> Are you saying you are not interested in
> philosophical distinctions at all? 
> In case you haven't noticed, the MOQ is chock full
> of them. For example, 
> Pirsig thought it worth distinguishing the MOQ by
> calling it 'empirical'.

      Sure we have distinctions, but what I am saying
is that we are not to get caught up in the
distinctions to try to point out if yin is more
correct than yang.  If that begins to happen then we
need to look at the overall yin-yang picture where
those two are one concept.  I am using yin-yang as an
example as SQ-DQ are two, yet, one called quality.  
     What is empirical if we have in mind what I
mention above?  It is the world we sense, as you said
earlier it is the private world.  I would say this is
the dynamic aspect of quality.  
     On the other hand once we identify such
sensations, which we will on some unmeasured amount of
times, then staticly we adhere definition called SQ.  
     I could go full circle and try to further
manipulate and define the static quality I have
hypothetically identified.  Maybe into some larger
theory about the world.  Yet, once I keep going with
this idea of mine and further define it and its' place
in the world and add on more and more variables that
connect and interchange with the static quality of
mine that began empirically - I have not only reasoned
this empirical fact into a larger understanding, but I
find more and more questions about the world to be
answered.  This static quality defined will therefore
still have evidence that dynamic quality still
persists.  Is the DQ in the concept where I have some
aspect of definition applied to it, thus SQ?  Or is
the DQ still only in the empirical world clinging or I
am clinging to it?  I would say both the static level
and the level above the intellectual level has DQ. 
Where are the distinctions?  I have mentioned quite a
few of them, but I am also not going to get caught up
in putting distinctions above non-distinctions or vice
versa.  They exist, but I do not rid one or the other,
make one or the other better or worse.  They have
value, but once I forget the overall quality they both
have together, then I am stuck in the SOM world of
dichotomy.  So I choose to have distinctions, not
forget about non-distinctions, and stay present in a
MOQ world.

SA  

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