[MD] qUALITY

Sat May 30 05:42:40 PDT 2009

Hello Mark,
 I'm trying to say that like S/O, the concept of whole complete
static solids or units, seperate and distinct onto themselves
is illusional, and what Imean by illusional I mean not to confuse
it with the term hallucenation but a distortion, a simplification,
exaggeration in such a way that it is a common quo view.

The equivilant mathmatical analogy would be the axiom of whole
numbers, the limit of the round, which is a "mean" useful for
purposes of calculation, but the actual measurement is constantly in flux
never in a state of wholeness and completeness ever transfering with 
the environment ever dynamic, relative.

So we constantly measure with our senses and the mean is a simplification
of a rich ever changing interrelative experience we all share  like
taste buds of quality licking itself......heh 

but we call the individual memory of each moment "me".

and project from it.

ahh, it's saturday morning, and this taste bud has a hangover.
Quality licked itself raw over here.

 a groggy
Ron

________________________________
From: markhsmit <markhsmit at aol.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:56:31 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] qUALITY

Hi Xacto,

If the "I" is not an entity, does that mean it is a non-entity?  Or is it outside
of the entity business altogether like Quality?

I think that is possible.  The I of experience exists with or without this 
body, which simply transduces the experience into a physical form.

If the I is not an entity, then it cannot appear and disappear.  This would 
be similar to the Hindu or Buddhist sense of the I.  What I am still asking,
is what makes the I personal?  Are there individual things outside of entity?

Mark

On May 29, 2009, at 3:57:49 AM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
Is'nt the "I" composed of Quality? the mistake is 
assuming entity-ship of Quality ...one entity = one consciousness.
this is not so. Quality is not an entity. niether is the "I".

________________________________
From: markhsmit <markhsmit at aol.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:26:38 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] qUALITY

On May 28, 2009, at 7:29:33 AM, Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com> wrote:
From:  Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com>
Subject:    Re: [MD] qUALITY
Date:  May 28, 2009 7:29:33 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Willblake2 asks:
Is Quality the immediate present (which is timeless), or is it more than
that?

[Krimel]
Dave can fill you in on the Aw Gi party line but his friend Rosenthal says
in her lecture that the present is not timeless at all. It carries with it
the remnants of the past and potential of the future. 

I would say, with due respect to Rosenthal, that there are no remnants in the immediate 
present.  As soon as it is captured and converted to neuronal activity or thought,
it is already the past.  This takes many thousands of microseconds.  The immediate
present has no past or future.  I suppose this is Quality, but how would I know the 
unknowable?  Don't know, but I do, just like everybody else does, every instant 
of every day.  "I" am the knower and Quality is known (with apologies to Pirsig).

Willblake2

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/