[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[Heather Perella]

> [Laird]
> Yeah, that may be a way of saying it... the idea at
> my start of this 
> thread about abstraction come to mind. If we think
> of the social and 
> (particularly) intellectual levels as being capable
> of abstraction,

     A difficulty here for me, is understanding how
social abstracts.  This is just like what I was
discussing with Platt.  I understand the social level
involves abstractions, in which we realize.  I
understand also that the biological level, DNA for
example, is abstracted.  Isn't all of this
understanding upon the levels, involving the mind,
thus, the realizing aspect.  As Case mentioned, these
levels are good metaphors.  This doesn't mean these
levels are all in the mind.  It just means that these
levels are constructing a conscious state to help
understand what inorganic, biology, social, and
intellect does amidst each other.  I ask, but why? 
Why are we doodling, that is, sketching static
patterns up this way?  What significance have we
parsed from these metaphors?  I poise these questions
due to the last spurt to distinguish social-intellect
(on the Social Imposition ? [MD]), in which this last
spurting could not subtract intellect from the levels,
then Case made his excellent point - we can't subtract
intellect from these levels, at least that's what I
gather from Cases' statement that these levels are
good metaphors.  Thus, let us not forget that the
biological and inorganic are good abstractions, too.



     [Laird]
> the idea of a lion distinguishing between a pack
leader
> and non-pack-leader 
> implies a degree of abstraction taking place.
> Abstraction doesn't fit 
> into the inorganic or biological levels, so then
> we've got to figure out 
> how to classify this behavior MoQ-wise. It's not a
> good fit in social 
> either.

     Pollen distinguishes between what trees it will
pollinate.  Sure, it's a simple matter of square
pollen fitting into a square hole, but distinguishing
is at play.  Structure itself is distinguishing and is
a constraint upon where the patterns will fit.  Not
sure, again, what the significance this line of
thinking, upon abstractions and distinguishing?  Where
objectification is leading us?  For as far as I
understand, objectification is neverending.  You'll
reach out looking for something solid and meanwhile
bottomless dq will still be here tapping one upon his
heart, mind, and shoulder.

     Here's a quote from "Toward A Philosophy of Zen
Buddhism" by Toshihiko Izutsu:  "'All things are
ego-less', meaning that nothing of all existent things
has a svabhava, i.e. self-subsistent and permanently
fixed essence."  
     I ask you Laird, what is this SOLAQI helping us
know?  I quote this as a reminder that dq:  nothing: 
no-self is included amidst static patterns being
coherent, to use a familiar word that I find helps.  I
also talk about sq-latching-dq, so, I have this
perspective as follows.
     Sq-latching-dq can't happen.  Yet, it does. 
Static patterns move away from themselves.  What
patterns they were, they are no longer, in this
particular episode that I'm talking about, in which I
find present in the code of art.  Static patterns (sp)
latching upon dq is unending.  This is creativity.  Sp
latching upon nothing is the same as saying "All
things are ego-less".  Thus, no static pattern is
fixed.  To put dq into static patterns is this not
what happens?  It is.  We discuss how static levels
evolve.  Dq being a driving force in this evolution. 
Thus, to place static patterns into a dynamic
perspective would be not to rid static patterns, but
to actually merge dq with sq and this is to speak with
excellence, coherence, dynamic equilibrium, and
undifferentiated, etc...  This is to rid rigid S/O
lines of demarcation.  Notice the word - rigid - for
sure I am me and you are you and yet, we're all
together (hmm, sounds like a song I know).       
     When you did mention that dq and chaos are
"absolute undefined potentiality" I wouldn't want
potentiality to be misunderstood as something that
becomes something, in other words, when sq 'emerges'
from dq to think dq is now diminished or subtracted
from would be false.  Dq involves itself with sq, but
it is all sq involving itself with dq.  Dq is nothing
and can't involve itself.  Sq is all the effort.
     As to coherence possibly denying change, in which
Marsha mentioned, I find patterns changing to be
coherent to the way things are.  Patterns changing,
thus, moving about, dynamicly shaping, these are
activities patterns and value require of themselves,
thus, are being coherent to the way things are.  To
deviate from change would not be cohering to the ways
of this world.

thanks.

rainy, rainy, no snow, no snow
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com