[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Reply below:

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 21:07:54 -0700, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> said:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> Thanks for the question.  Don't worry about the feedback,

Cool.

> the thing is to
> think and to progress with what you find meaningful.

yes, this might be as fine a position on DQ as I could come up with too.
But, to be sure, there is a 'you' in that statement.  Whatever the
metaphysics that spawned it.  Phaedrus talks about quality being the
source of subject and object, and I'm not trying to get to the root of
the metaphysics right now, but I think he might have argued that quality
spawns subjects and objects because that is the moral thing for it to
do.  I don't see Phaedrus as being opposed to the idea of subjects and
objects, but merely that having a metaphysics in which subjects and
objects are the source is faulty and a hindrance to seeing that subjects
and objects might not be fundamental.  Just like I have said that the
levels might be postulates whose postulation is unnecessary... well,
maybe subjects and objects are too advanced for serving as a bedrock for
a metaphysics, but that doesn't mean that the reality of subjects and
objects in evolved life should be ignored.  I think Phaerus would say
that the evolution of subjects and objects is the moral evolution, and
if it never had occurred, quality would be very low.

>  Your questions are
> appropriate.  My snide remark about ADD was meant only to annoy some of
> those, since it seems so easy.  Often there are those who claim to be
> teachers.  Perhaps this is appropriate since they have been around a
> longer
> time.  In my opinion, there are many ways to scale this mountain,
> starting
> from different vantage points,

I should hope that quality-morality is accessible from every vantage!

 and new blood sometimes provides new
> understanding.
> 
> Now, I am only one opinion that carries only that weight.  In my opinion,
> the manipulation of abstract symbols in considered to be one of man's
> highest achievements.  This is of course somewhat self-centered, but why
> not, we make the rules.  From such manipulation, one can describe a level
> which can be claimed to be different from the social level.  As you
> intuit,
> the concept of levels are just analogies to frame the concept of Quality.
>  From such framing, discussion can ensue.  A literal translation is
>  useful,
> but does not represent the real thing.  Such a thing arises on its own.
> 
> It has been suggested to me that I review what has been discussed before,
> so
> that I can provide consistent input, I find this to be an appropriate
> suggestion.  However, this is a large task, and I am often lazy.  So be
> it,
> one of the deadly sins, Sloth.  You have probably already passed through
> the
> MOQ.com site.  There is information there, some contributed by current
> members of this forum.  There are also some wild and crazy sites which
> either profess complete understanding, or are dismissive.  One can learn
> from both sides, but the amount of information is somewhat misleading. 
> The
> core of the material is, in my opinion, found in ZMM and Lila.
>

There seems to be a lot interesting in the above, hopefully I will come
across it - if I can overcome my laziness ;)
 
> I am happy to discuss any ideas.  What is sometimes dismissed here are
> supposed statements of fact (of which I am guilty).  Your notion of
> Tuning
> seemed like a good start.  The question is of course tuning what.

At the time I was thinking only of myself.  Of course I know that I
don't have a proper definition for 'myself' and I know that the
experimenter affects the experiment...

  It is
> possible for the motorcycle, the mechanic, and the tuning to exist as a
> single entity, that is no subjects and no objects.  Moving towards that
> is a
> Zen concept.

Yes!  Though I don't know much about Zen per se.  If, as I suggested,
the description of the levels was more a sign post for the way out, then
I think this is where out is.  But, I think subjects and objects sprout
from this because when it is all wrapped up like that it is very boring,
and of very low quality compared to the unraveling we know as life.

> 
> Of course, just my opinion.  Others may dispute this, which is fine.

ditto!

all the best,
Tim

> 
> Cheers,
> Mark, only been a contributor for about 2.5 years.
> 
>
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web