[MD] Quality as the fundamental building block of reality

[118]

Hi Tuukka,
I took this question separately.  I hope that I am not too oblique.

On 1/5/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark,
 Mark said:
>>>> One way to approach Quality is through a structural paradigm as you
>>>> present.  That is, Quality is an essence which comprises all in a
>>>> building block scenario.  There are other approaches however, which
>>>> are equally intuitive.
>>>>
>>>> Consider the following:  Quality is a "stimulus" from which all else
>>>> arises.  By stimulus, I can use the following analogy (one of many):
>>>> The smell of food makes you hungy.  You then go into a restaurant and
>>>> order a meal which you eat.  We cannot rightly say that "the smell of
>>>> food" is a "building block" for the restaurant or eating actions you
>>>> took, in that the smell of food does not comprise eating it
>>>> subsequently except as a stimulus.  However, without the smell of
>>>> food, your actions would not have happened (at least not right then).
>>>> Now, we can argue that "the smell of food" is a property, but that is
>>>> not how I am using it.  There are better analogies (I have to think,
>>>> however), but hopefully this one will give you an idea.
>>>>
>>>> In this manner, Quality can be seen as the stimulus for everything
>>>> that we experience.  Being Quality, it provides all the qualities of
>>>> life.  These qualities are what we can experience, since we cannot
>>>> experience something "directly", only its expression.  In a way, we
>>>> can say that it is the interaction of qualities (us an others) which
>>>> come from the fundamental ground of Quality.  If we ask where do these
>>>> qualities come from, we can say Quality.
>>> Tuukka:
>>> How is this MOQ different from phenomenology?
>> Mark:
>> This has nothing to do with phenomenology, although it can be used to
>> explain phenomenology.  Quality generates experience.
>
> Tuukka:
> Okay, but the smell of food is something phenomenology would be about.
> So how come it has "nothing" to do with phenomenology? Isn't that an
> exagerration?
>
> Basically, you seem to be saying only that besides "being" Quality, the
> smell of food is also "caused" by Quality. Now, why you want to say so?

Yes, this is the problem with analogies.  MoQ can branch off into
phenomenology, so I suppose you are right.  What I was trying to say
is that MoQ should not be placed within the rubric of phenomenology.
However, Intention does play a big part.  In a nutshell, we can be
considered as "Intent".  This would fall along the lines of Toltec
Wisdom.

Back to the analogy, I was using the smell of food as an example of a
stimulus.  Consider the following analogy:  After years of studying in
a Zen temple, a koan comes around at the right time and place, and
suddenly everything becomes very clear for you.  You become
enlightened, as it were.  Now this can be considered phenomenology as
epistemology.  However, instead of asking how did this happen, we ask
what happened.  What is this clarity?  Something has appeared where
before there was nothing.  The stimulus was the koan, but what did it
do?

In the same way, we can say "this is reality", but rather than create
a mechanism for it, we ask what is it in its entirety?  On presenting
what it is, we create an ontology.  That ontology then loops back and
creates more epistemology which becomes a snowball of sorts.  We can
get there through epistemology and start by asking for causes, or
fundamental building blocks.  However, there must be a cause which is
either recursive (as you say), or a cause that is not a cause.  By
this token, we can state that Quality is actually the removal of
cause.  From cause removal we get all things.  In this way,
phenomenology does not apply.

Quality begets Quality.  This is a tough one that I stumble through in
my explanations.  For although I know it to be valid, the logic is
somewhat far out.  However, in truth it is not disimilar to Wheeler's
presentation.  We could also see it as the opening of a lotus without
end.  I am working on yet another presentation of this, although I
have dealt with this in the past.

The reason I would say so is to provide a self consistent metaphysics
which explains all and more.  Just a little hobby of mine while I am
not saving the world from cancer...:-)
>
Cheers,
Mark

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
>