[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

Joseph Maurer jhmau at sbcglobal.net
Mon Apr 6 11:44:29 PDT 2009 

On Sunday 5 April 2009 10:30 AM Markhsmit writes to Joe,

<snip>
> Personal enlightenment is constantly changing and never
> the end.  It is the path of enlightenment (change itself) which is
> in question with all of this discussion.  Is there an easier way?
>

> Cheers

 
> Willblake2

 

Hi Markhsmit and all,

This statement intrigues me.  I suggest that ³personal enlightenment² is the
resonance between the DQ MOQ and the DQ/SQ in an individual.  Does
³conscience² monitor choices?

Am I awake/asleep so that a policeman stands in for my conscience?  Can I
fully awaken?  ³Perchance to dream, AH! there¹s the rub²

Joe



On 4/5/09 10:30 AM, "markhsmit" <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
> 
> I agree that Mystic is a word that can be used in a Magic kind of way.  There
> are some people that claim to experience a greater Unity than others.  I don't
> believe this for a minute, it is all just a state of mind..  When I use
> mystic, I mean an interpretation that is based on immediate experience and
> doesn't need additional words or logic or math or justification by whatever
> cause-effect reasoning is deemed necessary.  When I compare physicists and
> mystics, I mean just that different approach..  It is certainly nothing
> special in either case.  By defining Quality, we leave everything else out
> which by definition (like that?) does not work.  It is useful, however, to see
> how different approaches may mean (whatever that means..) the same thing.  It
> is by unifying all of this that perhaps a common understanding can be reached
> which can then lead to other things (evolution of thought, or perhaps thought
> has no evolution).  Personal enlightenment is constantly changing and never
> the end.  It is the path of enlightenment (change itself) which is in question
> with all of this discussion.  Is there an easier way?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Willblake2
> 
> On Apr 3, 2009, at 12:48:22 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> From:   "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject:    Re: [MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality
> Date:   April 3, 2009 12:48:22 PM PDT
> To: "moq_discuss at moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Hi Markhsmit,
> 
> Your happiness is contagious. I don't like the word "mystic." It is too
> close to magic, or imaginary. I prefer "instinctive" which gives body to
> the word "undefined", and makes training like education, and levels of DQ
> useful. How can you train a mystic? "Evolution" remains undefined and I
> have to appeal to order to use DQ, which requires a further evolution. IMO
> "Absolute (quality)" is a metaphor from social awareness, I am king!
> Intellectual quality is undefined at the social level. It seems I have to
> posit "personal enlightenment" to reveal the existence DQ beyond intellect.
> 
> Joe 
> 
> 
> On 4/2/09 5:52 PM, "markhsmit" <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>  
>> I have been happily reading Joe's use of active, passive, and neutral, to
>> help
>> paint Quality or its subsets.  Another way to look at manifestation, is how
>> the Vedantins did.  Our misperception is a result of veiling, projecting, and
>> revealing. Scientifically, misperception (illusion) is through time, space,
>> and causation.  Modern physics is using equations to break through the
>> misperception to show that perhaps The absolute (Quality) is changeless,
>> infinite, and undivided, which shows through because of its revealing powery.
>>  According to John Dobbs
>> (http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html),
>> which I read a while back and am paraphrasing, Absolute reality can be
>> interpreted by what shows through (or is behind) our apparitional view..
>>  Mystics and physicists are both describing the same thing using different
>> languages.
>>  
>> Willblake2
>>  
>>  
>> On Apr 2, 2009, at 3:44:08 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 2 April Krimel writes to Joe:
>>  
>> <snip>
>>> [Krimel]
>>> There seems to be a math epidemic. I suspect that your equations
>>> might mesh with Andre's somehow but I don't see how attaching
>>> numbers supports the idea of an undefined DQ. Quality is undefined.
>>> DQ is change.
>>  
>> High all,
>>  
>> Is a manifestation the same as order? Quality is DQ/SQ. DQ represents
>> order, evolution, SQ represents a manifestation within an order. Logic is
>> tricky in an individual manifestation and we have courts of law.
>>  
>> Mathematics carries an aura for logic which is unassailable except for its
>> premises. Figures don¹t lie, but liars can figure. I want to make a
>> distinction between a description of an individual DQ/SQ moral order, and a
>> manifestation within that order which is also DQ/SQ.
>>  
>> The individual responds to law. I manifest in three ways active, passive,
>> neutral. Laws for an individual being are laws for manifestations. I don¹t
>> get put in prison for breaking a law of evolution. I live I die!
>>  
>> Evolution is an order in existence! Behavior is an order of manifestation,
>> active, passive or neutral. Consciousness is DQ at the social level. SOL is
>> DQ at the Intellectual level.
>>  
>> At the social level DQ is an undefined social aspect of an evolutionary
>> order in existence. The result is a law of order with the appeal to 4 or 7
>> laws. I manifest as lawful, unlawful, or biding my time (asleep) at the
>> individual level. 
>>  
>> Joe
>>  
>>  
>> On 4/1/09 5:48 PM, "Krimel" <Krimel at Krimel.com> wrote:
>>  
>>> [Krimel]
>>> OK but I don't think DQ is undefined. Quality is undefined. I think
>>> Pirsig conflated the two out of enthusiasm and others follow out of
>>> blind obedience.
>>>  
>>> [Joe]
>>> [+1 (defined SQ) +0 (undefined DQ)] -1 (defined level of evolution) = 0.. In
>>> a MOQ manifestation in a level of evolution, the individual is negated and
>>> undefined DQ is in an order of morality, existence.
>>>  
>>> [Joe] 
>>> If DQ is defined +1 (defined DQ) + 1 defined SQ = 2 outside of order.. Who
>>> knows what evolution means with 2 in 0 order.
>>>  
>>> +0 undefined DQ +1 defined SQ + 0 order = 1 individual manifestation, the
>>> order is unnamed.
>>>  
>>> [Krimel]
>>> There seems to be a math epidemic. I suspect that your equations might mesh
>>> with Andre's somehow but I don't see how attaching numbers supports the idea
>>> of an undefined DQ. Quality is undefined. DQ is change.
>>>  
>>> 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/
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 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/
>>  
>>  
>> 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/
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 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/

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list