[MD] sustaining?

Sat Sep 20 11:40:57 PDT 2008

Hey Peter

Sure thing =) But, I mean, physics, history, art, mathematics  - everything 
is the same: More Quality input.

just got home from Greece now. Will post a rant I wrote down there by the 
sea later on, need to sleap now ;-)

have a Good one

>
> Christoffer,
>
> yeah man, flower power rules, OK?
>
> -Peter
>
> 2008/9/19 Christoffer Ivarsson <ivarssonchristoffer at hotmail.com>
>
>>
>> > .. also, how to follow dynamic quality??> -Peter
>> Live. follow that inherent drive to expand. in whatever direction. DQ is
>> everywhere.
>>
>> IMO
>>
>> Chris
>> _________________________________________________________________
>>
>> 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/
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:34:48 -0400
> From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Discrete & Dependent
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Message-ID:
> <20080920103456.KMMT3522.aarprv04.charter.net at Marsha-PC.charter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>
> An aside analogy:
>
> A civil war photograph is to the Civil War,
> like what conventional truth is to Ultimate Truth.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
> .
>
> Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the 
> stars.........
> .
> .
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:46:15 +0200
> From: skutvik at online.no
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quest for Quality
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Message-ID: <48D51AC7.25578.310E5D6C at skutvik.online.no>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Ham
>
> 18 Sep. you spoke:
>
>> After I said that Aristotle is not to be faulted for launching the
>> objective approach to knowledge (which some regard as "intellectual"),
>> you fault me for doing the same thing ...
>
> Objective approach to knowledge? I would say that "knowledge" is the
> objective (scientific) approach, but OK.
>
> Bo before:
>> > Right, here is the crux where you are well-meaning but wrong.
>> > Science is the essence of the intellectual level, that of a human
>> > mind exploring a physical universe. Philosophy on the other hand
>> > believes itself to be above science, but is firmly based on the same
>> > S/O-intellectual outlook. This includes your own Essence, and
>> > Pirsig's Quality as essence with the MOQ a theoretical ordering.
>> > The true MOQ is the DQ/SQ divide, this is the metaphysical
>> > equivalent to Newton's physical revolution.
>
>> "Essence of the intellectual level" is meaningless to me as a
>> definition of Science.  If you mean that experiential knowledge is the
>> goal of Science, I would agree.  Scientific methodology is the logical
>> approach to understanding physical reality.
>
> Your refusal to look through the MOQ "glasses" makes it difficult.
> Anyway, intellect is the distinction between a reality out there and a
> mind in here, but as the level grew more complex and the apparatus to
> test its conclusions  got more sophisticated, paradoxes proliferated,
> the latest demonstrated by Quantum Physics.
>
>> But physical reality is not the primary essence, and as I've said
>> previously, objective knowledge is not wisdom (true insight), and
>> Science is not Philosophy.
>
> The distinction between a (physical) reality and an observing subject
> first paradox is that one of these must be primary - the source of the
> other (the materialist/ idealist quarrel). This has gone on since time
> immemorial and is  what the MOQ reveals as futile because it stems
> from the S/O distinction being static. Your "essence" belongs to the
> idealist camp.
>
> Bo before:
>> > This is what the Newton example in ZAMM says:
>> > A great new insight/revelation comes along and in a
>> > crystallizing process it transforms the future, present
>> > and PAST in its picture. That you (Ham) don't get this
>> > message, but go on thinking that intellect is the ordering
>> > mind is forgivable, but that the moqists around this site
>> > ignore it is a tragedy.
>
>> How does a "new insight come along" and where does it come from?
>> The MoQist would say that it comes from Quality, or is a pattern of
>> DQ.
>
> A new INTELLECTUAL insight (like Newton's) comes along by
> intellects premises being manipulated by intelligence's logical gates.
>
>> I believe that the value-sensibility which constructs the universe as a
>> relational system also commands the intellect to realize its order and
>> cogency as  "insight".  Neither the value that is sensed nor the
>> awareness that senses it is an "existent".  All insight is proprietary
>> to the individual observer.  And that includes the appearance of
>> physical phenomena (i.e., experiential reality).
>
> An animal may have an "insight" about new ways to get food, but this
> is not intellect  and you can't call it (the ways) proprietary to a crow 
> (for
> instance) there is not individuality (subjectivity) at the biological 
> level.
> All this value-talk belongs to MOQ's "meta-level"
>
>> Now let me turn the tables and ask you a fundamental question:
>> Do you believe that this ordered universe, "the metaphysical
>> equivalent to Newton's physical revolution", exists independently of
>> its realization by the cognizant mind?
>
> The MOQ does not exist independently of SOM, this had to be
> achieved before the total picture could be seen. SOM is the distinction
> between a cognizant mind and a non-cognizant  world so in that sense
> "a cognizant mind" is necessary (at least) for a material universe".
> However in a MOQ retrospect the mind/matter distinction is itself a Q-
> development (its 4th. level)  so in the total picture - no - the Quality-
> ordered universe is not dependent on a mind. It HAS neither mind nor
> matter except as an aggregate.
>
>> In other words, can a universe exist without sensible awareness?  That,
>> I think, is the fundamental issue in this discussion.
>
> Listen, the MOQ postulates that the intellectual level creates (your)
> cocksureness that only a mind can make a physical universe become
> existent. The social level is/was not aware of any such distinction.
> There were (is for people still at that level) it) no mind that perceived 
> a
> physical reality, rather everything was guided by forces that permeated
> the world. These could be manipulated by correctly performed rituals
> (a remnant is religious prayers and sacraments). Intellect looks down
> on this as ignorance or superstition, but the MOQ brings intellect a peg
> down too.
>
> Can we be more fundamental?
>
> Bo
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:09:25 -0400
> From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Discrete & Dependent
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Message-ID:
> <20080920140933.LKAW3342.aarprv06.charter.net at Marsha-PC.charter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> At 06:34 AM 9/20/2008, you wrote:
>
>>An aside analogy:
>>
>>A civil war photograph is to the Civil War,
>>like what conventional truth is to Ultimate Truth.
>
> It's a simile, not an analogy?  Regardless, surely this is another
> way to say it:
>
> A civil war photograph is to the Civil War,
> like what a static-pattern-of-value is to Quality.
>
>
>
>
> .
> .
>
> Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the 
> stars.........
> .
> .
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:22:31 -0400
> From: "Krimel" <Krimel at Krimel.com>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Buddhism
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Message-ID: <1486DBE64E1D41F68B1452F161EC48F3 at SanfordLaptop>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>>[Krimel]
>>Let me add that neither of us has any power to convince you of the
>>foolishness of thinking we have the same host. We would have no better 
>>luck
>>in convincing you that the earth is round if you are believe it is flat or
>>that your fascination with Buddhist thought arises as much from its 
>>novelty
>>as from the sense it makes.
>
> Marsha
> The above statement seems to be a poor and underhanded challenge to
> my interest in Buddhism.  But maybe you have legitimate concerns, and
> I would like to hear the basis for such a remark.
>
> [Krimel]
> My main point was that conviction is not of function of reason and 
> evidence
> any more than perception is a function on sensation. We accept what feels
> right regardless of logic or facts. Logic and facts get bent to fit our 
> gut
> level sense of betterness without regard to truth.
>
> My secondary point with regards to Buddhism is really; are you running
> "toward" the "betterness" of Buddhism or "away" from the "worseness" of
> western thinking.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:00:35 -0400
> From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Buddhism
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Message-ID:
> <20080920150042.MXOK3342.aarprv06.charter.net at Marsha-PC.charter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> At 10:22 AM 9/20/2008, you wrote:
>> >[Krimel]
>> >Let me add that neither of us has any power to convince you of the
>> >foolishness of thinking we have the same host. We would have no better 
>> >luck
>> >in convincing you that the earth is round if you are believe it is flat 
>> >or
>> >that your fascination with Buddhist thought arises as much from its 
>> >novelty
>> >as from the sense it makes.
>>
>>Marsha
>>The above statement seems to be a poor and underhanded challenge to
>>my interest in Buddhism.  But maybe you have legitimate concerns, and
>>I would like to hear the basis for such a remark.
>>
>>[Krimel]
>>My main point was that conviction is not of function of reason and 
>>evidence
>>any more than perception is a function on sensation. We accept what feels
>>right regardless of logic or facts. Logic and facts get bent to fit our 
>>gut
>>level sense of betterness without regard to truth.
>>
>>My secondary point with regards to Buddhism is really; are you running
>>"toward" the "betterness" of Buddhism or "away" from the "worseness" of
>>western thinking.
>
> Krimel,
>
> I would like to leave behind the worseness of both and run towards
> the betterness of both.  Who would want it any other way?   And
> actually I'm trying to hold hands the MOQ to facilitate this
> strategy.  Want to define how you think I'm doing?
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
> .
> .
>
> Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the 
> stars.........
> .
> .
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:26:48 -0400
> From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quest for Quality
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Message-ID: <28C1D1379BD84F67885361259362EAF3 at hamPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
> reply-type=original
>
>
> Hi Bo --
>
>
>> Objective approach to knowledge? I would say that "knowledge" is the
>> objective (scientific) approach, but OK.
>
> Yes, that is a more logical definition.  I stand corrrected.  (Where I
> understand you, your propositions are well constructed.  It's those
> propositions of yours I don't understand that are frustrating.  But I
> suppose that's to be expected.)
>
> [Bo before]:
>> Science is the essence of the intellectual level, that of a human
>> mind exploring a physical universe. Philosophy on the other hand
>> believes itself to be above science, but is firmly based on the same
>> S/O-intellectual outlook. This includes your own Essence, and
>> Pirsig's Quality as essence with the MOQ a theoretical ordering.
>>The true MOQ is the DQ/SQ divide, this is the metaphysical
>>equivalent to Newton's physical revolution.
>
> [Ham]:
>> "Essence of the intellectual level" is meaningless to me as a
>> definition of Science.  If you mean that experiential knowledge is the
>> goal of Science, I agree.  Scientific methodology is the logical
>> approach to understanding physical reality.
>
> [Bo]:
>> Your refusal to look through the MOQ "glasses" makes it difficult.
>> Anyway, intellect is the distinction between a reality out there and a
>> mind in here, but as the level grew more complex and the apparatus to
>> test its conclusions  got more sophisticated, paradoxes proliferated,
>> the latest demonstrated by Quantum Physics.
>>
>> The distinction between a (physical) reality and an observing subject
>> first paradox is that one of these must be primary - the source of the
>> other (the materialist/ idealist quarrel). This has gone on since time
>> immemorial and is  what the MOQ reveals as futile because it stems
>> from the S/O distinction being static. Your "essence" belongs to the
>> idealist camp.
>
> Terminology does affect one's understanding of a concept.  One of the
> problems here is that you are using "intellect" to represent what I call
> "experience".  To me intellection is the process of organizing sensory 
> data
> into a structured whole - experiential existence.  Thus, I would say,
> "Experience is [how we distinguish, intellectualize] a reality out there
> from a mind in here."   I won't quarrel with your assertion that Essence
> "belongs to the idealist camp" if you'll agree that Pirsig's Quality also
> falls into this camp.
>
> [Ham]:
>> How does a "new insight come along" and where does it come from?
>> The MoQist would say that it comes from Quality, or is a pattern of
>> DQ.
>
> [Bo]:
>> A new INTELLECTUAL insight (like Newton's) comes along by
>> intellects premises being manipulated by intelligence's logical gates.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "intellect's premises".  Are they 
> mental
> constructs of cognizant awareness or patterns of an extracorporeal 
> quality?
> Why aren't "intelligence's logical gates" intellect itself?   You seem to 
> be
> treating intellect as a property or function of the objective universe
> rather than the subjective individual.  This is a Pirsigianism that is
> incomprehensible to me.
>
> [Ham before]:
>> I believe that the value-sensibility which constructs the universe as a
>> relational system also commands the intellect to realize its order and
>> cogency as  "insight".  Neither the value that is sensed nor the
>> awareness that senses it is an "existent".  All insight is proprietary
>> to the individual observer.  And that includes the appearance of
>> physical phenomena (i.e., experiential reality).
>
> [Bo]:
>> An animal may have an "insight" about new ways to get food, but this
>> is not intellect and you can't call it (the ways) proprietary to a crow
>> (for
>> instance) there is not individuality (subjectivity) at the biological
>> level.
>> All this value-talk belongs to MOQ's "meta-level"
>
> To the extent that a crow can be said to have "insight" it is the crow's
> proprietary awareness.  What draws the crow to a food source is that it
> needs food to survive and knows where to find it.  The need to survive may
> be instinctual, but the location of the source is known only to the crow.
> I don't see how animal behavior can be understood any other way.
>
> [Ham]:
>> Now let me turn the tables and ask you a fundamental question:
>> Do you believe that this ordered universe, "the metaphysical
>> equivalent to Newton's physical revolution", exists independently of
>> its realization by the cognizant mind?
>> In other words, can a universe exist without sensible awareness?
>
> [Bo]:
>> The MOQ does not exist independently of SOM, this had to be
>> achieved before the total picture could be seen. SOM is the distinction
>> between a cognizant mind and a non-cognizant world so in that sense
>> "a cognizant mind" is necessary (at least) for a material universe.
>> However in a MOQ retrospect the mind/matter distinction is itself a Q-
>> development (its 4th. level)  so in the total picture - no - the Quality-
>> ordered universe is not dependent on a mind. It HAS neither mind nor
>> matter except as an aggregate.
>
> By "a Q-development" do you mean that Quality acts as an external force to
> infuse or empower the individual with intellect?  If so, to what extent 
> does
> this Q factor create the individuals' thoughts, ideas, feelings, and
> decisions?  And if the individual is externally manipulated in this 
> manner,
> how can he be a free creature?   That's a fundamental problem for me, Bo.
>
>> Listen, the MOQ postulates that the intellectual level creates (your)
>> cocksureness that only a mind can make a physical universe become
>> existent. The social level is/was not aware of any such distinction.
>> There were (is for people still at that level) it) no mind that perceived
>> a
>> physical reality, rather everything was guided by forces that permeated
>> the world. These could be manipulated by correctly performed rituals
>> (a remnant is religious prayers and sacraments). Intellect looks down
>> on this as ignorance or superstition, but the MOQ brings intellect a peg
>> down too.
>>
>> Can we be more fundamental?
>
> We cannot be more fundamentally wrong.
>
> Thanks, Bo
> Ham
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Moq_Discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>
>
> End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 34, Issue 82
> *******************************************
> 