[MD] MOQ Recursion

[John Carl]

Marsha,

Found it!

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:03 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> Et tu Brutus?
>
>
Now I can see how you might take it that way, so let me clarify and
reinterpret somewhat.

First off, my pleading for the balance of romantic/classic as the
intellectual level, is met more consistently by you Marsha, than any other
member of this list.  You bring a much needed romantic quality to the MoQ
and are heavily outweighed by all the classically oriented intellectuals
which dominate such a metaphysical discussion as this.  So I sure don't want
to make you feel ganged up on.

So let me readdress my points in a way that hopefully doesn't make you feel
quite so stabbed in the back.

John prev:

>
> > But since it's a high Quality statement for you, I assume it's a High SQ
> > formulation.  What I'm wondering then, is if this high SQ is blocking any
> DQ
> > in your intellectual patterning, since you sorta default to it over and
> > over, like a programming bug or a clinging to the one felt and known and
> > trusted?
>
> Marsha:
> l imagine this last bit makes sense to you, but it doesn't to me.  I
> certainly can
> get into the MoQ as intellectual volleyball, but that will not be the same
> as
> "unpatterned experience/patterned experience", not even close.
>
>

John:  Intellectual volleyball?  Cute.  I like it.  Everybody has their own
set moves, their own particular patterns.  Now, you often offer us, this
"unpatterned experience/patterned experience" as your own particular
favorite leap up and spike over the net.  Which from my perspective, sends
the ball out of bounds.

"out of bounds", in intellectual discourse, means it's irrational.  When you
say "unpatterned", you can't really mean NON-patterned.  There is no such
thing as "non-patterned".  However I do believe there is experience that is
non-intellectual.  That is, there is patterning that is transcendant of
intellectuality and I suspect that is what you mean by the experience to be
found in meditation.

Since we define the boundaries of play as "rationality", then, any
experience which describes  "transcendant of rationality" as being part of
the game is a logical contradiction.  And yet, the MoQ does exactly this and
thus, you make a good point.  However you can only leap up and spike if
somebody sets it up for you.

Do you see the problem?

me neither.  But it's starting to take a fuzzy shape in my mind.


>
> > John:
> >
> > Yes, and how does that make you feel?  Or to put it the way Ron, often
> does,
> > what good does it do? Where does this "represent" come in handy in the
> real
> > world?
>
> Marsha:
> Find out for yourself, John.   You once told me you were a totally
> rationally-based person.  So was the question of feelings addressed to
> me because you project me as a mommy?  And could you handle any kind
> of explanation beyond rationality according to your own self-description?
>
>

John:

I misspoke before.  I'm not totally rationally-oriented.  I'm actually kind
of balanced on the classic/romantic continuum.  I've always been more in
touch with my touchy-feely side than most guys.  I like to have both,
science that is artful and art that makes philosophical sense.

As far as my mommy needs, I don't really have any.  This is I-Ronic because
it's my mom's greatest problem - she always gave me lots of affirmation and
love as a child, which made me self-sufficient with a strong ego that
doesn't need her approval now that I'm an adult and frustrates the hell out
of her.  Whereas my brother Ron, whom she didn't much like as a child, is
very dependent upon her opinion, and thus easily manipulated and thus is now
her favorite.

God life is funny!

Anyway, believe me, you don't wanna project yourself into MY mommy issues
because they are messy.



> > That's what I'm always itching to know.  Pragmatic value.
>
>
> Marsha:
> Lots of pragmatic value, but you will need to experience it for yourself.



John:

I mean pragmatic value in dialogue, in helping to get the other, in helping
to formulate common understanding.



> > John:
> >
> > Well we're rubbing up against my old problem with "the intellectual
> level"
> > again.  Because the way you people have got the "intellectual level" in a
> > rationalistic and classically oriented box, you completely do away with
> the
> > better half of human mental ability.  The romantic side, the artistic
> side.
>
> Marsha:
> What's this "you people"?   "I" don't have anything mixed up.



John:

Well I do see you as leaning heavily away from the classical side of
intellection and more toward the romantic side, so kudos there.  But, you do
chime in with Bo in assessing the intellectual level itself as being SOM,
and that to me is "doing completely away with the better half of human
mentation".




>
> > These two sides have to be united, or the whole thing doesn't work.  It's
> > very low quality to suffer under either ugly science or art that doesn't
> > make any sense.
>
> Marsha:
> I don't see things as you have them divided.


John:

I don't think they should be, but they are by the assertion that SOM is the
intellectual level.

We see things differently.  That's a good thing.  That's how we can help
each other.



>
> > I can understand why some people feel like giving up.  I'm going to try
> and
> > make a sensible argument why they shouldn't.  A hard task, but hey, if
> I'm
> > gonna take on the label, better put on the shoes.
>
> I've never seen Little Shop of Horrors or the GaGa girl.
>
>

John:  Uhh.. me neither.  When I posted that, I was thinking of Dave T, and
his announcement of giving up... and waves and particles and where they
meet.

WaveDave has always been amongst my favorite posters on this forum.  The
first to really dialogue with me when I first joined years ago, and author
of some of really good stuff.  I've been wanting to discuss zoning as
reality for some time, but I never really got around to it, and then he went
and posted some really excellent ideas about it and I hope he returns.

longingly,

John