[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Heather Perella]

> [Laird]
> No, not trying to rid the separation at all.

     oh, ok.

     [Laird]
> Just showing that in 
> sentence-form the longer version of the statement is
> counterproductive 
> to understanding the message.

     I agree.


> > [SA previously]
> >      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.

     What do you mean?  We rationalize and we don't
rationalize.  How is this 'experience' not happening
both ways?


      [Laird]
> I'd say that no-rationalization Exists, which would
> be pre-rationally 
> (duh). :-)

     What of imagination?  This is not pre-anything
when staticly latched.  Yet, imagination, in the mind,
is real, but is not necessarily/always rational.


     [Laird]
 In particular, it's the subset of Static
> Quality which 
> doesn't get rationalized by the intellect, which is
> what you're aiming for.

     What subset of static quality?  What is this
subset?  Any static pattern is being defined or
defining, thus, intellect is involved.   I'm not
aiming for anything.  I'm here.  Just sitting and
typing.  Please clarity yourself, thanks.


> > [SA previously]
> >      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".

     ok, I see how this is an event.  Sq defines
preint. and intellect, also, intellect (being sq)
defines sq.  Self-reflection happening here.


     [Laird]
> Static quality as Existence, 
> Reality... "Reality defines preintellectual and
> intellectual" has been 
> my main message.

     Sure, reality is defining.  I agree.

     [Laird] 
> 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.

     This is where I'm now noticing the hang-up.  It's
this subsetting.  Static quality is intellect,
society, biological, inorganic.  Light is blue, green,
purple, red, but I only see white light, until, I use
a prism.  Static quality practiced is all of these
patterns, yet, I am only able to comprehend human
beings mentioning these patterns, yet, I notice
intellect everywhere, society everywhere, biology
everywhere, inorganic everywhere - when, and only
when, to use MoQ terminology, I notice static quality,
which is all this definition.

     [Laird]
> That's why I cannot support the 
> notion that prime Reality/Existence is created by
> the intellect.

     ooooh, I see.  I wouldn't say static quality is
only intellect.  Yet, Intellect is static quality.

     [Laird]
> 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.

     Primary Reality is a result of intellect, as
intellect is mindful, conceiving, and thus, conscious
of primary reality, and I don't think society,
biology, or inorganic are performing intellects task,
to use distinctions.
     So, primary reality is intellect.  Intellect is
primary reality, only in the sense that one
understands primary reality is intellect.  Without
realizing primary reality is intellect, and one says
intellect is primary reality is to define intellect
and primary reality without the full realization. 
This is ill-defining, or leaving out the other levels
of primary reality, including dq (the non-level).


     [Laird] 
> 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!

     This is why I don't see/experience MoQ as solely
a philosophy, in the traditional western philosophical
notion.  Yet, the MoQ is all philosophy practicing. 
Dynamic quality is not circular/recursive rationality.
 It is nothing.  Yet, MoQ is not solely dq.  MoQ is
also sq.  So, MoQ is bottomless (dq), and also firm
(sq), and thus, the bottom does not go on and on, but
this bottom can't be firmed by any sole defining point
(substance) due to dq.  This is how quality is both
firm and bottomless.  Yet, I warn everybody, I am
under the influence of Dogen right now, and to me,
this is all making sense in the Way I'm putting this
across with some help from Dogen.  Tomorrow, it might
be a little birdy told me, we'll see.


     [Laird]
 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.

     Zen is not super-nihilistic.  Also, as you say,
we're all aware dq is not something, but once we
static-ifying dq we've defined dq, which is not
possible.  Dq is not definable.  This is the
discontinuity between sq and dq that I mentioned
earlier in this thread.  In Zen, "All beings are
Buddha-nature."  Yet, no-Buddha-nature is
Buddha-nature, thus, this means, when we notice
Buddha-nature we don't need to even notice this as
"All beings are Buddha-nature", we notice simply, no
more, no less:  "All beings"  and this is the firmness
and emptiness of Buddha-nature.  So, what's the
difference between the MoQ and Zen, hmmmmmmmm....

     [Laird]
> We just have to live with it, and 
> regardless it's still Quality talk.

    I agree.  When we talk sq and talk dq, as long as
we are aware these are quality, then, as you say: 
"regardless it's still Quality talk."

     This has been an excellent discussion.  This
discussion has helped me clarify my perspective. 
Clarifying perspective is a practice.  Hope to
continue on clarifying and chattin', if thus it is to
be.

thanks

woods,
SA   


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited