[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Laird Bedore]

Hi SA,
>      [Laird]
>   
>> "We rationalize and 
>> intellectualize Existence" says it all. But that
>> very statement implies 
>> a separation between the intellectual and
>> pre-intellectual (which was a 
>> key point in my argument). His definition placed
>> Existence as the 
>> "output" of rationalization and intellectualization,
>> mine placed 
>> Existence at the "input", so I stuck a
>> compromise-word in there to ease 
>> the gap. With the compromise word, the statement
>> becomes "We rationalize 
>> and intellectualize Existence into existence." It
>> does sound circular 
>> and confusing, so let's go with the shorter one.
>>     
>
> [SA]
>      When you say, ""We rationalize and
> intellectualize Existence into existence."  your
> trying to rid the separation?  That's fine, but that
> would mean your just trying to 'dynamic quality talk',
> as I understand it.  If you were 'sq talking' or
> 'quality talking' you wouldn't be hung up on
> separations.  Distinctions and separations exist, but
> they are nothing, nothing at all.  
>
>   
[Laird]
No, not trying to rid the separation at all. Just showing that in 
sentence-form the longer version of the statement is counterproductive 
to understanding the message.


>      [Laird]
>   
>> Experience is itself a term of rationalization...
>>     
>
> [SA]
>      To emphasize any term is 'sq talk', unless, you
> also notice that no-rationalization is experience,
> too.
>
>   
[Laird]
That would make for a paradoxical statement.
If experience is a subset of rationalization, and not-rationalization is 
a subset of experience, then not-rationalization would have to be a 
subset of rationalization, which is paradox.

I'd say that no-rationalization Exists, which would be pre-rationally 
(duh). :-) In particular, it's the subset of Static Quality which 
doesn't get rationalized by the intellect, which is what you're aiming for.


>      [Laird]
>   
>> Would you be okay with 
>> "one experiences the intellectual", and to use
>> Pirsig's pop-culture 
>> verbage of the time (the jazz club story), "one
>> 'just digs' the 
>> preintellectual"? It's the word and meaning of
>> "experience" is hanging 
>> me up on this one.
>>     
>
> [SA]
>      One does experience the intellectual.  I output
> superman, and I input no-superman.  Then I go to this
> movie and input superman, and output na, no-superman. 
> Preintellectual is the intellectual in 'quality talk'.
>  In 'dq talk' all is not defined so there is not even
> preintellectual and intellectual.  Static quality
> defines preintellectual and intellectual and may
> notice 'inputs' and 'outputs', but after all,
> according to the MoQ, all of this 'sq talk' and 'dq
> talk' is just plain-old quality and we're livin'
> without-with hungups-no-hungups.  A?  
>   
[Laird]
Yup, that's what I've been getting at: "Static quality defines 
preintellectual and intellectual...." which is the converse of 
"intellectual defines static quality". Static quality as Existence, 
Reality... "Reality defines preintellectual and intellectual" has been 
my main message.

In comparison, "intellectual defines static quality" directly turns the 
MoQ into a self-contradicting implosion, since intellect is already 
defined as a subset of static quality. That's why I cannot support the 
notion that prime Reality/Existence is created by the intellect. 
Filtered "second editions" of it are available to the intellect, but 
prime Reality is (by definition of intellect in MoQ) the source of 
intellect and cannot be the result.

The whole practice of philosophy or any transcending thought is 
circular/recursive rationality. Abstractly describing the reality which 
allows us to (abstractly describe the reality which  allows us to 
)......... on and on it goes! Talk is all SQ (I can't say "DQ is 
something" without static-ifying DQ) and that's something we're all 
aware of, but fighting the fact is like a sort of super-nihilistic 
regressive Zen where it's more enlightened not to talk, breathe or exist 
than it is to talk, breathe or exist. We just have to live with it, and 
regardless it's still Quality talk.

-Laird