[MD] [Bulk] Re: Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?
MarshaV
valkyr at att.net
Mon Nov 8 04:39:32 PST 2010
On Nov 7, 2010, at 7:50 PM, rapsncows at fastmail.fm wrote:
> Marsha,
> my reply below,
> Tim
>
> [Marsha]
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 03:07:45 -0400, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> said:
>>
>>
>> Greetings Tim,
>>
>> My words are carefully chosen as the appropriate analogy for
>> my understanding and experience and insight.
>
> [Tim]
> No doubt they were carefully chosen, but why should anyone value the
> object of an analogy? An analogy is a process, towards an object of
> value. ANd it seems analogy is a valuable process in itself. But if
> its the process that you valued I would have preferred this sentence to
> the actual analogy!
Marsha:
There is no object of analogy; there is only process/experience.
An analogy is a process pointing to a process pointing to a process
etc., etc., etc.
Are your preferences a type of object? Or process?
>
>> [Marsha] It's great that we
>> may be close in understanding, but not necessary that we be
>> identical.
>
> [Tim]
> if the goal of the intellectual level ('understanding') is to inform the
> social level, isn't it then the goal of intelligence to reach some
> static social platform upon which we both stand, identically? (Even if
> that static patter were eventually to evolve to be synonymous with
> Dynamic Morality itself)
Marsha:
Relatively close, maybe? What should we inform that naughty Social
Level? How about that freedom's just another word for nothing left to
lose.
>
>> [Marsha] I prefer the word 'ultimate' as addressing the furthest reach of my
>> understanding, which is ever-changing, relative and impermanent.
>> As far as I am aware, I have no knowledge of anything 'Absolute'.
>
> [Tim]
> as I see it, you are treating your analogy (the object thereof) as
> absolute. Isn't this where phaerus would say "you KNOW what quality
> is"? Isn't Quality the ultimate absolute upon which Phaedrus hung his
> metaphysics? Isn't that the point? There is an absolute. And you Know
> it.
Marsha:
I don't see it that way. I see it as Quality(unpatterned experience/
patterned experience), pure process, no thing, no absolute.
> This is why I keep going back to the creation of the metaphysics, and
> Phaedrus's admonition that, "strictly speaking', it is "immoral", and
> also his admission that, "you never get it right".
Marsha:
I agree with Phaedrus. He is a very wise shaman!!!
> I think we both admit that there is a barrier to our knowing ourselves,
> intellectually, via perceptions. But Phaedrus said that before
> perceptions, and before intellectualizations, there is a dynamic process
> by which you Know Quality.
Marsha:
Knowing it doesn't mean one has the best words to talk about it. In fact
talking about it may prevent one from knowing it. It's the Mother of all
paradoxes. ... But I cannot think what is more important. Really.
Knowing for me has taken on a rather odd flavor. I've read, and it
seems true, that the best way to approach Quality (Ultimate Truth) is
by discovering what is false.
>> [Marsha]
>> The word 'flow' works because it matches the the movement of my
>> thoughts during meditation. The river analogy, with its eddies &etc.
>> seems a wonderful analogy.
>
> [Tim]
> I just worry that 'flow' (and I liked it more before in the context of
> 'a flow') is too constrictive. That is, I wonder if reality is more
> complex.
Marsha:
It is if you think it is. - I suppose it depends on how one attaches to
certain patterns. What does Phaedrus say? Something like it is
difficult because it is so e-a-s-y...
>> [Marsha]
>> In turn I might wonder how your phrase "somehow absolutely real"
>> doesn't put you more in my camp where 'somehow' seems nebulous,
>> putting the 'absolute' beyond knowing for certain. Like you may think
>> it's a rope, not knowing anything about it being an elephant. ;-)
>
> [Tim]
> I agree. In that sense I am most definitely in your camp. IT may be
> that I am way way off when I build my metaphysics, but still, there is a
> difference between trying and not-tying, between pointing away from it,
> and pointing towards it. Now i'm fine if we are to say that it is all
> teh same because we have never deviated from 'it', but then that brings
> me out of the metaphysics all together. At that point, why even use a
> word like analogy? if we are saying "it is all the same" because we
> know it will somehow be wrong ("you never get it right."), we can't
> really know that the analogy is mere analogy. Maybe by some dumb
> luck it is not just an analogy. I could call the object of my attempts an
> "approximation", maybe...
Marsha:
Paradox!
Maybe if I become enlightened the words will flow like honey. But at
the moment they bounce and ramble like analogies. But I try my best.
DQ is sq, sq is DQ. Isn't it a miracle that we are here, in this forum,
touching Quality?
> either way, the question is: isn't the goal of all this just to get out,
> and by out I mean intellectually out of the intellectualization of a
> distorted image of the past, and matterially, into a material pattern,
> fairly constituted, and especially so regarding: social individuals -
> organized based on the best that the intellectual level has to offer?
Marsha:
I am not so far enough along that I can see the end of the tunnel, but I might
guess that it is good to understand intellectualization as a pretty good tool,
but nothing more. I want to say something about what makes your heart skip
a beat, or takes your breath away. Bumpity, bump - bump - bounce...
>> [Marsha] So if we agree on "ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent,
>> inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value,"
>> I am pleased.
>
> [Tim]
> I think I have one correction: (actually two, the first is that, as I
> recall, I left out 'of value' the first time) I have to leave off '
> static patterns'. Perhaps it is best to put back "of value" --->
> "ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent, inorganic, biological,
> social, intellectual _________________ of value". I guess, we both
> believe we need to use some uncertainty. I just think there is value to
> using some in the blank too. I guess I'm suggesting that, to me, it
> seems like, in saying 'static pattern', you are finding outlet for the
> "absolute" you were lacking before. And that phaedrus would suggest
> that that outlet should rather come as a faith in the absoluteness of
> some You, which Knows Quality.
Marsha:
I know it is a cliche, but the journey is the destination. And I suppose that
makes me the journey.
Thanks Tim...
Marsha
-------------
>>
>> On Nov 4, 2010, at 5:49 PM, rapsncows at fastmail.fm wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Marsha,
>>>
>>> [Marsha]
>>>
>>>> And of course we all exist, but as a flow of ever-changing,
>>>> interdependent, impermanent, inorganic, biological, social and
>>>> intellectual static patterns of value within a field of Dynamic Quality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "And of Course we all exist,"
>>>
>>> I'm with you
>>>
>>> "ever-changing"
>>>
>>> I think this is fine
>>>
>>> "interdependent"
>>>
>>> great
>>>
>>> "impermanent, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static
>>> patterns"
>>>
>>> I will highlight PATTERNS just to be sure
>>>
>>> so I think we are real close. But...
>>>
>>> I have always refused to define myself. This one I'm cool with leaving
>>> open. After my interchanges with Mark yesterday and "A" today, I am
>>> liking the idea that it is mainly these static patterns that are truly
>>> mine. But it seems that they must somehow be tied to absolute reality:
>>> right? I don't know what part of that is mine, if any. There is part
>>> of my that is the front of the train. There is a part of me that is in
>>> the present, acting dynamically --- and continually augmenting my train,
>>> my SQ. So all I'm saying is that I don't know if you have got this
>>> quite perfect yet.
>>>
>>> secondly, the way that absolute reality preserves itself and me,
>>> dynamically, interdependently, may also not quite be captured perfectly
>>> by "a flow". Nor again, "within a field of dynamic quality"
>>>
>>> I don't think that I have been picking nits, but we seem to be very
>>> close. perhaps switching to the equivalent "moral" will help. within a
>>> moral arena.
>>>
>>> Thus,
>>> And of course we all exist, but as ever-changing, interdependent,
>>> impermanent, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static
>>> patterns of value, somehow absolutely real, within absolute reality, and
>>> somehow capable of mutual influence within this field of Dynamic
>>> Morality.
>>>
>>> what do you think?
>>> Tim
>>> --
>>>
>>> rapsncows at fastmail.fm
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users:
>>> http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html
>>>
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list