[MD] nit-picking clear perspective is quality

[Heather Perella]

     We've veered too far from essentialism, I think,
in the sense that we haven't mentioned essentialism,
so, I'd say we've side branched into a new [MD].  Do
you agree:  quality nit-picking is clear perspective: 
nit-picking is quality clear perspective:  nit-picking
quality is clear perspective:  nit-picking clear
perspective is quality?
     
Don't really have to answer this question, I'm just
playin' with words for the fun of it, although, the
meaning is practiced by the play on words.

     Anyways...

> [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. :)

     You say above that 'experience' is intellectual
awareness of reality.
     You say above that 'experiencing' is
non-intellectual.  
     I see experiencing is practicing.  
     I see 'nit-picking' is practicing.
     I experience nit-picking as a practice.  This is
what I refer to as 'clarifying perspective'.


 [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".

    gotcha! ok.


    [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.


   ok, I'll see where this takes me.


  [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.


     I don't know if your leaving dq out of this
primary reality or not.  I do know you're trying to
define 'non-rationality', so, I know you're aware of
preintellectual included with primary reality.  Also,
I'm sure primary reality is quality.  This is also to
say primary reality is not-quality.  Ooooh, what would
that mean, I don't know, it is 'not-MoQ-rational', but
that 'not-MoQ-rational' exists.  MoQ is to include
everything, even nothing.



   [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"...

     By saying this quote above, I'm also saying:
          Intellect is conscious and is primary
reality.  
          Primary reality is intellect and is
conscious.

     This is said so as to avoid any hang-ups with
using OF.  Intellect isn't necessarily outside of
primary reality, as OF might imply.  Yet, when making
the necessary arrangements for definitions sake. 
Intellect is not totally primary reality, for
non-intellect, thus, pre-intellect is primary reality.
 I know you know this, just clarifying.

         
    [Laird]
     ...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.

--------
     
     Sure, "when intellect isn't around", and later on
"see that the tree has fallen".  Intellect is always
around and I don't see that the tree has fallen.  I
do.  I don't.  Mu



[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...

------------
     
     Nothing is more than us.  We are it.  Am I G-d? 
nop.  Am I Buddha-nature?  nop.  Am I anything?  nop. 
Is G-d anything?  yeap.  Is Buddha-nature anything? 
yeap.  Am I anything?  yeap.  So I am nop and yeap. 
That's what I do.

 
     [Laird]
...and more-than-our-senses.

--------

     Nothing is more-than-our-senses.  Everything is
our senses.  Then I look at this, don't want to get
stuck, so, I flip this around.  Everything is
more-than-our-senses.  Nothing is our senses.  Hmmm...
still makes sense (no pun intended).  


     [Laird]
SOM philosophies had a hard time explaining that, but
the MoQ does it pretty easily.

---------
     
     Explaining the flip?  The nop and yeap.  The
input and output.  What's this like?  O, I'd say it's
exactly like this, where I sit here in the quiet just
livin' and somehow this is simply the Way.  Full of
direction and notions, yet, not a peep... well, I do
hear the loud wind, and it's takin' me somewhere...
the dreams... reality... not stickin' to one ounce of
this is it, and yet, it is.


[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?"

---------------

     Excellent question.  Zen is Quality.  Zen is full
distinctions with particulars and static quality.  Zen
is impermanence with nondistinctions and dynamic
quality.  It's this code of art that the MoQ discusses
that has me hmmmm-in'.  This might be the True Self of
Zen where the inevitable distinctions and
non-distinctions are here all in all without any
hang-ups in practice, due to dq.  Dq rids hang-ups,
and we've got 'new' static patterns.  Code of art is
dq and sq ridding hang-ups, due to the 'impermanence
is creative-destruction' and impermanence is
destructive-creation'.  True Self Zen is the pivotal
event in Zen, which includes all events are pivotal
therefore.  Code of Art is pivotal event in Quality,
which includes all events are pivotal therefore. 
Quality True Self is Code of Art.  Maybe?


[Laird]
It's wonderful, and wonderful practice! Thanks too.

---------

    Wonderful, wonderful practice indeed!

woods,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com