[MD] mystical awareness and intellectual explantions

[MarshaV]

At 08:47 AM 3/6/2007, Bo wrote:
>Dear Marsha
>
>On 5 Mar. you quoted yours sincerely:
>
> > > Yes, I see the DQ/SQ as absolute.... snip.
>
> > Absolute?  Does absolute mean nonchanging?  Even ice is in a constant
> > state of change....
>
>I think you miss the very point of the Dynamic/Static dualism. It's
>fundamental but also fundamentally different from the S/O and
>thereby it reconciliates ourselves with our world. Regarding the
>water/ice metaphor there exists no intermediate state between
>the two. In ZAMM P. uses crystalization as an example of how
>the Quality Idea formed. As usual I could not find the exact
>quote, but discovered another one and this may help you see that
>Phaedrus (at least) saw the Quality Idea as escaping intellect..
>
>Phaedrus in ZMM:
>
>     I don't think anyone really saw what he was up to at first. They saw an
>     intellectual delivering a message that had all the trappings of 
> a rational
>     analysis of a teaching situation. They didn't see he had a purpose
>     completely opposite to any they were used to. He wasn't furthering
>     rational analysis. He was blocking it. He was turning the method of
>     rationality against itself, turning it against his own kind, in 
> defense of
>     an irrational concept, an undefined entity called Quality.
>
> > Does Quality define and explain itself?  Does it write books and
> > letters?   The moment the MOQ is explained, it becomes
> > intellectualized static quality.  Yes, no, and all of the above?
>
>If this is to prove that everything is intellect in the MIND sense
>then you have found an absolute other than Quality and a
>Metaphysics of Intellect similar to the MOQ is called for. Can't
>you even begin to understand? Whatever is found basic,
>inescapable, where the buck stops, can be made into a
>metaphysics, but - first of all - they will have to be dynamic/static
>split, and - secondly - have the S/O divide as their 4th. level.
>
>And this is about all I'm going to say, my arm-length posts don't
>help much. Only this:

Greetings Bo,

Maybe like the Buddha is both Buddha mind and ordinary mind, the 
Metaphysics of Quality is both Dynamic Quality and static 
quality.  And the SOM is much less, as it is embedded in static 
quality.  I get this.  My point is that our Western languages are 
reflective of SOM, and therefore using these languages diminish the 
direct MOQ experience.

But if I am totally misunderstanding the MOQ, at closer than 
arm's-length, I give you permission to shake some sense into me.

Your paintings are very beautiful.  I wish they were not so small, so 
that I might see more detail.  But, regardless of size, they seem to 
emanate an ethereal quality.  Wonderful!!!

Marsha