[MD] Knots

[Alexander Jarnroth]

Hi Mark

I guess I would have to consider this in some more depth first.
But I got one instant though based on Jungian psychology. In this approach,
the first step in psychological development is differentiation of the mind -
and the goal is to return to an undifferentiated state of mind- but with the
knowledge of the differentiations.
One Buddhist monist, with whom I once discussed, meant that all dualism is
based on what something is and what it isn't. This, of course, is primary
DISTINCTION.
I remember once a Jew who told me about an interpretation of the first lines
I Genesis.

"1IN THE BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth. 2The earth was
without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the
Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3And God said, "Let
there be light" and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good;
and God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day,
and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was
morning, one day. 6And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of
the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7And God made
the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from
the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8And God called
the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second
day. 
9And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into
one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10God called the dry
land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And
God saw that it was good."

What this Jew told me was: see how the Lord created everything by
distinguishing between them. He distinguished between light and darkness,
heaven and earth, land and sea.
And I remember something from one of Jung's book, I don't remember which
one, which said, however, that the development in Genesis 1 is meant to
symbolize differentiation by telling what something is and what it isn't.
There is an Egyptian story, also, about Shu, which has some similarities
with Genesis 1. I read about it in a Swedish work on ancient Egyptian
theology, titled "with the world as a mirror" (in a sense quite similar to
Bourdieu's "Logic of Practice").
But do these notions really accomplish anything? What would that be then?`
At least they HAVE TO say something about human experience, because they
were created by human beings for human beings.

And really "see things just as they are" or as they "seem"? Experience is
experience and experience is experience of something only if you
differentiate, I guess. With no distinctions, there is only this presence
and no more.

/A

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] För 118
Skickat: den 7 november 2010 08:33
Till: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Ämne: [MD] Knots

Recently I have been suggesting a description of Quality (Q) as "that which
separates".  This is of course an analogy which provides a path to Quality,
or in other words, a finger which is pointing towards it.  Such an
interpretation emphasizes that which separates Static Qualities (SQ), rather
than what they are.  The interpreted separation, which could also be
approximated by Assigned Value (AS), is ever changing, thus creating a
concept of Dynamic Quality (DQ).  When two things are compared, or two
choices are contemplated, it is the difference between the two that is the
intuited concept.

Such a concept converts the objects or subjects themselves, and their
dynamic interaction, to the Quality between.  Approaching the notion of
Quality in this way, provides a shift in view or paradigm, that results in
an evaluation of the cause rather than the product.  The degree of
separation of good and bad concepts would be a function of that which
separates them, or Quality.  This suggests measurement of Quality, but such
a thing can be avoided by stating that such measurement is meaningless since
the objects are not real in themselves but simply a function of Quality, and
as such do not provide inherent characteristics for measurement.   The
nonexistence of the things themselves could be imparted by describing them
as geometric points, which are dimensionless.  Or like the borders of the
combined DQ and SQ which are again without dimensions but only describe the
limits of apparent Quality as it is applied to specific examples.  Personal
or subjective sense of Quality would then become universal since it does not
rely on our opinions of the things themselves.  Quality itself would remain
untouched, as a primary (or absolute) creator.

In a broader sense, one could describe the Chinese concept of Yin and Yang
not as opposing dynamic entities, but rather ones which are separated
through Quality.  Quality viewed in this way would approximate the Tao, but
in a modern rational sense.  It provides a conceptual understanding of a
description of Quality in both its static and dynamic forms, as well as an
ineffable principle of separation.  The difference with Taoism is the
empirical notion of direction, as with Time.  Time itself is a function of
the pressure that (DQ) puts on change.  Such change creates static
dissimilarities which result in preference.  Preference implies choice.
 Such choice is directed by Quality, and could be seen as a vector with
direction.  The vector is not one in dimensional space, but is in the
metaphysical space of Quality.  The concept of betterness could be used as a
description of that direction.  The magnitude of such direction on a time
basis, is a direct result of the accumulation of dynamic quality.  Such
accumulation is a result of harmonic tendencies of Quality's expression.

In terms of the human mind, such separation results in the appearance of SQ,
and the notion of DQ, as a result of the transfer of an infinite amount of
information into simplified neuronal descriptions which appear isolated from
each other.  Such descriptions could be seen as the tendency of Quality
towards its static appearce.  The unifying factor is Quality, which is
missed, because we do not consider this separation, only the descriptions
themselves.  An analogy in physics would be something like a magnetic field.
 If two magnets attract each other, the strength of that attraction would
not be the result of the strengths of each magnet.  Instead, the strengths
of each magnet would be created by the magnetic field as first cause.  This
would be a flip in how the interaction between the two magnets is
conceptualized.  In the same way, colors are different not due to some
inherent property of the colors, but due to an inherent property of what
separates them.  Two things appear differently due to the intrusion of
Quality.  Since the objects themselves do not exist outside of this
separation, Quality encompasses them and becomes the source of everything.
 Another way to look at it is as the spaces between letters on a page.
 Words are created by the white portion of the page, not the black.

This form of description is not difficult to grasp in theory.  The
difficulty comes from trying to conceptualize the world in this way because
our training or education has been based on just the opposite.  Such a
paradigm shift could happen slowly with practice.  One Zen practice is to
stop labeling or naming things one sees, but rather to look between such
things with a more holistic sense.  In the same way, the codependent arising
of things could be simplified into the ebb and flow of DQ, or the tendencies
of Quality.

Just a rough thought, open for discussion if desired.  The intent is to
provide a framework for easy transfer to the beginning student.  I'm sure
there are many problems with it, at least in such a simple description

Cheers,
Mark
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/md/archives.html