[MD] All the way down

[MarshaV]

On Dec 18, 2010, at 5:55 AM, rapsncows at fastmail.fm wrote:

> Marsha, dmb,
> 
> dmb,
> At risk of mounting your frustration:
> 1) thanks again for a good set of excerpts.
> And, 2) I'm 'a butt in because I hope that this thread gets back to
> where it was going (I don't have the formal background, so I may flub
> things up on the formal side here).
> 
> Marsha,
> so, first, there was the point he was making to Steve and Matt about:
> "[DMB] The important idea here is that this central term (Quality in the
> first book and Dynamic Quality in the second book) is outside of
> language and outside of the mythos." (I might say a leap of faithe
> amongst the unknown will always be at the fore, even if we can
> eventually fill out some aspects of Quality (= Morality), and DQ, with
> language (math).)
> 

DQ is sq, sq is DQ.  Most of us know this, but it sounds like 
Matt and Steve do not care to focus on a separate DQ 
experience.  


> second, as you point out, the static intellectual (which doesn't come
> explicitly until LILA), or, less completely, rational / analytic thought
> must have a dynamic aspect. "[DMB] It makes the dynamic a crucial phase
> in the overall cognitive process." And, "[DMB] In Lila, this notion will
> become the operation of Dynamic Quality within the scientific process
> itself, ... (cut off to be resumed)"

As far as I know, all static patterned events have a dynamic aspect.  


> But, third, and I would say this is 'the important idea' regarding your
> interjection now, is that this dynamic aspect is not a mere PASSIVE
> thing which happens to (a flowing static) you: you are integral in it. 

True if one is aware of it.  It's passive if outside of awareness.  


> It is the intellect which gives the 'direction' - well, it is not
> necessarily limited to the intellect; you give it direction though,
> anyway.  See:
> 
> "[RMP] But about the Buddha that exists WITHIN analytic thought, and
> GIVES THAT ANALYTIC THOUGHT ITS DIRECTION, virtually nothing has been
> said, ..."

ZMM did not have static patterns of value and certainly not separate categories.   
So what is intellect?  Is it when bits and pieces of intellectual static pattern of 
value enters consciousness?  -  I do not equate thinking, even when the word 
intellect is used to designate thinking, as equivalent to intellectual static 
patterns of value.  Consciousness is an interdependent aspect of all 
patterned events, but the whole process.   


> "[DMB](continuing where I cut off in the second point)... the
> co-operation of DQ and intellectual static quality." - where I'll
> highlight 'co-'.

Right.  DQ is sq, sq is DQ.  


> "[DMB] What he's trying to do is expand rationality or intellect."

Mindfulness expands all patterned processes.   


> "[RMP] "The difference between a good mechanic and a bad one, like the
> difference between a good mathematician and a bad one, is precisely this
> ability to SELECT ..."

Okay.   


> Finally, I think this puts all three together:
> 
> "[DMB] This value-force is pre-intellectual and yet he's asserting "the
> formal recognition of Quality" within intellectual operations. That's
> what radical empiricism does.

Radical empiricism is a theory.  Mindfulness is the desired experience.    

> It makes the dynamic a crucial phase in the overall cognitive process.

In theory.   


> It explains the relations between the dynamic and static phases of
> experience as aspects of a single, co-operative process."

The MoQ explains the relationship between dynamic and static 
experiences.   Buddhism offers techniques to get you to the 
experience.   James didn't know much about mindfulness or 
meditation.  



> And, while I'm at it:
> 
> "[DMB] It's about bringing all your faculties to bear and a deep
> engagement with whatever you're doing. It is aimed at down to earth
> stuff, which a lofty and worthy goal. It's also exceedingly sane,
> because that's where we live; practical, everyday reality." --- very
> nice.

If dmb is talking about the MoQ, who, besides Matt and Steve, will 
disagree with this?  I take it that this attitude is what attracted us all 
to the MoQ.  It is what ZMM and LILA is about.  

Marsha


> 
> Thanks again,
> Tim
> 
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 02:17:36 -0500, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> said:
>> 
>> dmb,
>> 
>> It sounds like you are explaining that you like your philosophic
>> explanation of reality to include a dynamic aspect.  If not, please
>> explain the exact point of this post and how the quotes support your
>> position.   
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha