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

[MarshaV]

At 10:27 AM 1/4/2007, SA wrote:

>      [Marsha]
> > This was my theory that it may be difficult to sort
> > the spovs into
> > the proper level (social or intellectual) when
> > sorting from the
> > self-spovs,
>
>      What do you mean by self-spovs?

This is from Lila's Child:

"The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a
"self" that is independent of inorganic, biological, social or
intellectual patterns. There is no "self" that contains these
patterns. These patterns contain the self. This denial agrees
with both religious mysticism and scientific knowledge. In
Zen, there is reference to "big self" and "small self." Small
self is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality."
                                              (Annotation 29., pp.64-65)

Then when trying to figure out if thoughts are intellect or social 
level, one expects the self, this mish-mosh of intellect and social 
patterns, to figure it out.  It gets confusing and that confusion 
contaminates the process.  It's like the self is trying to analyze 
what the self is up to, and then trying to categorize the mental 
process.  Everything becomes overcomplicated.

Mark Maxwell recently wrote this:  "The MoQ says: Social patterns are 
imitated, Intellectual patterns are
manipulated."

Mark was a great help to me.  I think it's that simple.  And I'm not 
going let my tendency to overcomplicate get me stuck.



>      [Marsha]
> > ...when in fact the spovs from all levels
> > are creating that
> > self.  It's hard to be objective, like trying to
> > look into your own
> > eyes.
>
>      Basically what your saying, maybe, is we can't
>define our true self completely objectively?  All the
>levels help, but the levels include dq, all together
>it's quality, and that would give us the whole
>definition and fill in all the gaps.  So, to try to
>rely upon the levels for a total definition is to miss
>out on dq, which all together the true self is
>experienced.  ???  So, therefore, understanding these
>levels, and other aspects of our experience is to
>eventually recognize, to use a familiar way of
>understanding that I know, which is quiet.  Another
>way to understand quiet to use MoQ terminology is
>sq-latching-dq, and this is true self: code of art,
>but sq can't latch dq, yet, that effort reveals true
>self.  ???

I remind myself to kiss deeply (kiss = keep it simple stupid)  <-me.


m