[MD] Fw: MD Two Theses in the MOQ

[David M]

resend
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David M" <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ


> Erin
>
> SO you stick with SOM and do not prefer MOQ?
>
> DM
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 8:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ
>
>
>> On Saturday 31 December 2005 10:30 AM David M writes to Bo
>>
>> [David] We can only be aware of what we experience,
>> in all its various qualities. We experience what changes (DQ).
>> And some changes are repeats (SQ). And some of these
>> repeats are brought about by us. Language is just another
>> form of SQ, just higher up the levels than rocks, plantsand tools. There
>> could be no institutions, money, SOM
>> or MOQ without language to set it out with. What we experience
>> is not just in our minds, what we experience is the way
>> everything that we are not changes what we are, we
>> notice change, and we notice it in terms of value, good or bad
>> for us. Although regular change falls out of conscious experience,
>> like the 10 to the power of 22 atoms of oxygen we exchange with
>> our environment with every breathe.
>>
>> Happy New Year to all, thanks for the chats,
>> I am sure I have learnt something from everyone
>> who has posted this year. Many thanks.
>>
>>
>> Hi David, Bo, and all
>>
>> I disagree that "Language is just another form of SQ, just higher up the
>> levels than  rocks, plants and tools." IMO The analogies and metaphors of
>> language are specific pointers to DQ in a special way apart from the 
>> pointer
>> in SQ. The S/O divide exists in consciousness as an awareness of two 
>> types
>> of evolution. The language of 'S' through analogy and metaphor points to 
>> an
>> awareness of the existence of 'human creativity evolution'. The language 
>> of
>> 'O' points to an awareness of the existence of 'mechanical cosmic
>> evolution'.
>>
>> Happy New Year to all:
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>> Bo
>>>
>>> We can only be aware of what we experience,
>>> in all its various qualities. We experience what changes (DQ).
>>> And some changes are repeats (SQ). And some of these
>>> repeats are brought about by us. Language is just another
>>> form of SQ, just higher up the levels than rocks, plants
>>> and tools. There could be no institutions, money, SOM
>>> or MOQ without language to set it out with. What we experience
>>> is not just in our minds, what we experience is the way
>>> everything that we are not changes what we are, we
>>> notice change, and we notice it in terms of value, good or bad
>>> for us. Although regular change falls out of conscious experience,
>>> like the 10 to the power of 22 atoms of oxygen we exchange with
>>> our environment with every breathe.
>>>
>>> Happy New Year to all, thanks for the chats,
>>> I am sure I have learnt something from everyone
>>> who has posted this year. Many thanks.
>>>
>>> DM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi David M (Mike, DMB, Dan and Marsha mentioned)
>>>>
>>>> While trying to figure out what your input for me was about this
>>>> caught my interest. Let me add my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> On 30 Dec. you wrote to Mike;
>>>>
>>>>> Yes language allows us to isolate and recognise
>>>>> SQ or objects in our experience, but via habit
>>>>> and fetish it also blinds us to the richer SQ/DQ
>>>>> mix of our experience, but we can move on and
>>>>> re-think our experience as in the move from SOM
>>>>> to MOQ as an example. Language has a dual
>>>>> covering/uncovering effect as Heidegger pointed out.
>>>>
>>>> after Mike (on 18 Dec.) had written (to Ian)
>>>>
>>>>> > Thinking about it, I think it was specifically your "to name it is
>>>>> > to kill it" that made me bristle. If you'd said "to define it is to
>>>>> > kill it", then fine. But to name something is to give it life, not
>>>>> > to kill it. Yes, defining Quality would kill it. But imagine: what
>>>>> > kind of a life would Quality have if Pirsig had never named it? It
>>>>> > would just be a vague notion held by Pirsig and nobody else
>>>>> > (although I'm not sure if it could even be notion...can you have a
>>>>> > notion of something that isn't signified? this twists me up just
>>>>> > thinking about it). You might say that it would still have life
>>>>> > because it has so many other names: the Tao, the One etc. But this
>>>>> > only shows how something needs to have a name.
>>>>
>>>>> > By writing about it, Pirsig breathed life into Quality. Language is
>>>>> > our friend, not something to be suspicious of.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Mike there is still hope. What I can't (under)stand is the
>>>> newfangled mysticism that spreads like a virus - first DMB and
>>>> now Ian and Dan, maybe Marsha  -  when argument and logic
>>>> fails they revert to the nonsense about things better treated by
>>>> silence or "Eastern wisdom".
>>>>
>>>> Existence (my favourite expression to avoid the somish notion
>>>> that evolution takes place within our minds) has reached the 4th
>>>> level and it is from its premises things are seen and from where
>>>> the Quality step is made. Again Thanks Mike!
>>>>
>>>> NB! I must for the nth time point out that the 4th level is the S/O
>>>> divide, but my contemptous "somish" means the attitude that the
>>>> fourth S/O "level" is all there is! No Quality Reality beyond.
>>>>
>>>> For David M:.
>>>>
>>>> Language - treated in a somish sense - is a black hole. It's plain
>>>> that "everything is language" or "just hot air", as plain as the the
>>>> notion that "everything takes place in our minds", but this was
>>>> what put Phaedrus on the the Quality Quest and what the MOQ is
>>>> a liberation from. Thus it jars my Q nerve when you say that
>>>> language "allows us to isolate ...etc". This is the said somish
>>>> notion that the Q-evolution is a linguistic, or mindish thing.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you make amends for this about the "blinds us to the
>>>> richer DQ/SQ mix ...etc" but I smell the dreaded mysticism here
>>>> ;-) After the transition from SOM's S/O to MOQ's DQ/SQ is made
>>>> everything is seen according to the latter. Language becomes a
>>>> social pattern that - while serving social purpose - had no
>>>> "covering/uncovering" effect. It was only at the 4th level that this
>>>> arose because the 4th level does nothing but split experience into
>>>> all kinds of dualisms.
>>>>
>>>> Happy New Year to You All!
>>>>
>>>> Bo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> 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/
>>
>