[MD] aggregates of grasping

[Carl Thames]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] aggregates of grasping


>> Carl:
>> Do you think they're quantum based?
>>
>>> Quality can explain them all.
>> Carl:
>> How?

Mark:
> For me quantum reality is an interesting way to look at things.  For
> it implies discreet jumps.  This would in turn suggests that we are
> jumping over something.  That something could well be DQ, or even
> Quality.

Carl:
Hmmm.  I see it all connected, so there is nothing to "jump over."  It's all 
energy.  Some in different forms, but it's all the same thing.

Mark:
> One useful way of presenting Quality (at least to myself) is
> that Quality is what then results in the differentiation of all.  For
> it would seem that such "all" differentiates in terms of qualities.
> This would point to the Mother of all qualities.  If we say that
> Quality exists even before such differences we become aware of, then
> we can use it in some metaphysical constructions.
>
> Just as in the differences between apples is created by Quality, we
> can also say that our free will is also created by Quality since we
> are then allowed to choose.  We can extend this analogy to Self and
> Other (if one likes this dichotomy).  The separation between Self and
> Other is created by Quality in the same way that the difference
> between apples is.  That is, Self and Other is given birth by Quality.
> It is simply a shift in focus, where we do not look at the two sides
> of that presented, but rather at what lies between them.  So, just as
> we have the incoming light being converted to a personal
> interpretation of such as a cause-effect paradigm, we can switch the
> focus to Quality creating both the light coming in AND our personal
> interpretation of such.  From this we can say that Quality is the
> "well from which all things come".  This would make it similar to Tao.
> Both Quality and Tao are that which comes before Some Thing.  Does
> this make sense?  We then extend this to senses that we are not aware
> of, but which can be deduced from experiences we have, if we are
> sensitive to such experiential causes.

Carl:
It makes sense, I'm just not sure I agree with it. <G>  In the process of my 
studies, I became aware of the work of Jean Piaget. 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget)  He postulated that there is a 
distinct point in human development when a child realizes there is something 
beyond itself.  i.e. becomes able to differentiate between self and other. 
The significant part of that is that the child isn't born with that 
awareness.  Is it quality that causes that shift in awareness?  I don't 
know.  It could just be part of normal human development.

>> Carl:
>> At times, I think there is so much "noise" going on with modern 
>> philosophy
>> that it's almost pointless to take a position. So many out there are 
>> trying
>> to make a name for themselves that they're coming up with all kinds of
>> nonsense, and others seem to exist just to come up with bad analogies to
>> shoot down anyone with an original idea.
>
> Yes.  Whenever I say nonsense, I mean it from a personal point of
> view, for I am sure than many make "sense" of such things.  I just go
> fishing in the ocean of philosophy, and find what I can use to explain
> my perception.   Philosophy seems to move forward by way of argument,
> and this makes it interesting and somewhat of a challenge for me.  I
> believe we can move beyond the "first principles" that philosophy is
> based on, and come up with some kind of "spiritual rationality".

Carl:
There has been so much that's already been said, I just try to become aware 
of what's out there.  Then I put it through my own "does that make sense" 
filter, and then either apply or reject it.  This applies here.  If there is 
no difference between Quality and Tao, then why are we using another name 
for it?  The concept of the Tao has been around for a LONG time, right? 
Doesn't it have the right of the first name?  Do you know of a reason why we 
should apply a different label to it?  IS it different?

>> Carl:
>> Hmmm. Makes one wonder just where this burning desire to build comes 
>> from.
>> Our great-great>10 ancestors seemed to be content living in caves, but we
>> insist on building our own cave, where we want it. I guess that's just
>> practicality, though. Plus climate control.... Then again, how many 
>> people
>> question how an automatic transmission works? We accept a LOT, including
>> the stuff in the basement, and pray fervently we'll never have to 
>> replace,
>> or even worse, re-create it. We just insist that it keeps working.
>
> Yes, burning desire indeed.  Modern day philosophy would guise such a
> thing in the evolutionary model, but I think this is somewhat short
> sighted.  Since I have presented this many times, I will leave it at
> that.
>
> We do rely on the experience of others to live the way we do.
> Therefore reality cannot just be explained by personal experience, as
> is often the case in this forum.  For much of what we "understand" has
> its root in our faith in what is presented by others.  Of course this
> presentation can also be used for sinister purposes.  So in this sense
> I equate "acceptance' with "faith" as I understand them.

Carl:
Agreed.

>> Carl:
>> I know too many people who are completely content to live on the surface.
>> Give them a six pack and a sit-com, and they're as happy as it gets. I 
>> like
>> to sit beside a lake. The water recharges me, as you say. I started the
>> ground school while I was in Korea, but my mother passed away and I had 
>> to
>> drop it when I came back. I never returned to it, although at the time I
>> could have gotten a private pilot's lisence for $500 total, including 
>> plane
>> rental, etc. (I'm still kicking myself over that one.) I also passed up
>> the opportunity to scuba while on Okinawa. I've had problems with my ears
>> since childhood, and didn't want to do the pressure change thing on a
>> regular basis. As for building the parachute, keep in mind that you don't
>> need a parachute to sky dive. You need a parachute to sky dive TWICE. ;-)
>
> Yes, "on the surface" in more ways than just the physical.  There are
> those who live only in the conceptual world from which to get meaning
> as the only source.  MoQ is trying to disuade such one-dimensional
> living.  It is trying to get us out of the cave of shadows that a sole
> understanding through the conceptual would place one in.
>
> Yes, my license is currently on hold because of the cost, but it does
> give me something to look forward to.  I also have ear problems which
> is why I did not pursue a career in deep sea marine biology.  However,
> it was that interest that introduced me to the realm of biochemistry,
> which I find most exciting.
>
> As far a parachuting, I will leave that to a time when I am ready.  It
> makes my palms sweat just thinking about it :-).

Carl:
Yup.  I had a chance to go skydiving in Korea also, but I passed on that 
one.  I would do it if the plane were on fire, or some other pressing 
reason, but not for the sake of doing it.  I can conceive of free-falling 
through space, and that's enough for me.  I don't need the actual experience 
of throwing myself out of an airplane.  Is my perception flawed?  Probably, 
but I'm willing to take my own word for it for now. :-)

Can you explain how MOQ is trying to disuade one-dimensional living?  Is it 
an awareness thing?  As for coming out of the cave, I found an interesting 
quotation from Huston Smith, following a mystical experience:

"Plotinus's emanation theory, and its more detailed Vedantic counterpart, 
had hitherto been only conceptual theories for me. Now I was seeing them, 
with their descending bands spread out before me. I found myself amused, 
thinking how duped historians of philosophy had been in crediting the 
originators of such worldviews with being speculative geniuses. Had they had 
experiences such as mine ([later I discovered] that they had. . . ) they 
need have been no more than hack reporters. But beyond accounting for the 
origin of these philosophies, my experience supported their truth. As in 
Plato's myth of the cave, what I was now seeing struck me with the force of 
the sun, in comparison with which everyday experience reveals only 
flickering shadows in a dim cavern.  How could these layers upon layers, 
these worlds within worlds, these paradoxes. . . be put into words? I 
realized how utterly impossible it would be for me to describe such things 
tomorrow . . ."

-Huston Smith (2000, p. 11)

Later,
Carl