[MD] nit-picking clear perspective is quality
ian glendinning
psybertron at gmail.com
Sat Dec 2 03:07:30 PST 2006
SA, Laird, and DMB
SA said
"meaning is practiced by the play on words"
I say hear, hear, and point out that both "practice" and "play" are dynamic.
And, talking of playing with words, a question for DMB; how would you
characterise this from SA ?
"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?"
Drivel, or a valuable stream of wonderful consciousness ?
Regards
Ian
On 12/2/06, Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list