[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Laird Bedore]

Hi SA,
>   
>>> [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.
>>     
> [SA]
>      What do you mean?  We rationalize and we don't
> rationalize.  How is this 'experience' not happening
> both ways?
>
>   
[Laird]
I'm just nit-picking on the word experience. I look at experience as our 
intellectual awareness of reality. I don't have a word for the 
non-intellectual 'experiencing', but I know what you mean. I just 
haven't found a way to word it that I like. :)


>       [Laird]
>   
>> I'd say that no-rationalization Exists, which would
>> be pre-rationally 
>> (duh). :-)
>>     
> [SA]
>      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]
I think of "rational" thought as any use of the intellect/mind/etc, 
including imagination or dreaming. I don't limit "rational" to thoughts 
that conform to SOM logic and all that. It's "stuff that the brain can 
do that things-other-than-the-brain cannot do".


>      [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.
>>     
> [SA]
>      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.
>
>   
[Laird]
The non-rational is the subset I was talking about. To expand a little 
more on my "rational" definition above, "rational" would describe things 
within intellect, and "non-rational" would describe things (inorganic, 
biological, social, maybe dq?) not within intellect.


>> [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".
>>     
> [SA]
>      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.
>>     
> [SA]
>      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.
>>     
> [SA]
>      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]
Yep... and when I say that Static Quality is (exactly) Primary 
Reality... I'm connecting the dots and saying that Primary Reality 
contains intellect, society, biological, organic. More on Primary 
Reality below.


>      [Laird]
>   
>> That's why I cannot support the 
>> notion that prime Reality/Existence is created by
>> the intellect.
>>     
> [SA]
>      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.
>>     
> [SA]
>      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]
I can see you're working through this and trying all the options. As you 
said, "intellect is conscious OF (my emphasis) primary reality", my 
suggestion is that the intellect doesn't "hold" primary reality itself - 
it holds a photocopy, and the process of intellectualization is the 
photocopier. This allows inorganic, biological, and social to interact 
with Reality even when the intellect isn't around ("if a tree falls in 
the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?")... When 
intellect later comes and sees that changes to Reality have occurred, it 
updates its photocopy and our minds can "see" that the tree has fallen.


>      [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!
>>     
> [SA]
>      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]
That's the beauty of our ability to think... Our thought can transcend 
itself and reach out to DQ, Buddha-Nature, God, and other things 
more-than-us and more-than-our-senses. SOM philosophies had a hard time 
explaining that, but the MoQ does it pretty easily.


>> [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.
>>     
> [SA]
>      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]
Agreed, Zen is not super-nihilistic... I was using an imaginary 
super-nihilistic perversion of Zen to point at the problem.
Since MoQ and Zen are both very inclusive philosophies, it may be 
helpful to ask "what's the same with MoQ and Zen?"


>      [Laird]
>   
>> We just have to live with it, and 
>> regardless it's still Quality talk.
>>     
>
> [SA]
>     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   
>
>
>   
[Laird]
It's wonderful, and wonderful practice! Thanks too.

-Laird