[MD] Marsha is a mystic.

[118]

Hi David,

Yes, I agree it is about perspective.  We are trying to get away from
the engrained perspective where everything becomes classified as an
object, or a subsidiary of some truth, and we look more at the event
behind the object.  When one strives towards the Good, the Good is not
an object, nor is it a matter of taste.  It is what each of us feels
inherently pushing us forward.  It comes without classification, just
like the feeling of morality cannot be classified.  It just is, and we
operate within in.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> The MOQ is all about perspective. Ultimately, from the perspective of DQ you are right. But there is more to life than this perspective.  This is what I am saying.
>
>> It would seem you are ripe for some Buddhist intervention since you
>> see life as suffering.  This can be abolished through Buddhist ritual
>> if you need it.  Personally I do not.
>
> Do you never suffer Mark?

Sure, but less than I used to.  I was also ripe for Buddhism for a
while, and it is from that perspective that I speak to you.  I feel
pain, but it is pain without all the negative attachment that comes
with it; it is just pain.  I suppose it could be considered a "trick
of the mind" to convert most everything into a positive experience.
But I think it is more fundamental than that.  I believe it aligns
with the arrow in the universe.  Floating down the stream as it were,
without grabbing on the branches for fear of what is around the
corner.  I have to say, I have completely lost the fear of death,
which used to plague me.
>
>> Do you consider the newness of
>> a budding plant to be painful and old?  What we consider sq is
>> glorious!  Why denigrate the state we live in so much?  Life starts
>> with death, it is not painful, but rejuvenating.
>
> I agree. But where does life sq come from? To begin with static quality is new. But does it continue as new forever? We can pretend that sq never gets old but this would be misrepresenting the natural state of things.

I can agree with that, static quality, at least in its humanized form
is drawn from the well.  It is the need to attach to things so that we
feel we have a place in the universe, that we belong.  I also agree
that one cannot live without attachment alone, for that removes much
of the meaning that I find so fulfilling.  I am one for balance.  We
have gone so far into the static nature of things that our involvement
with DQ is hidden.  This is of course my own opinion, and jibes with
what Pirsig wrote about at the end of ZAMM.
>
>
>> Polluting the world with static ideas?  Is not this concept a static
>> idea on its own?  Who is doing the pollution, David.  Marsha has
>> opinions, but you do not have to breath the second hand smoke.  How
>> about looking for the diamond in the rough there?  Character
>> assassination, now that is pollution indeed.  How about if you put an
>> entry into Wiki concerning Marsha.  It is freely open to opinions, and
>> one can find references for any point of view (Wiki begets more Wiki),
>> you know, and those vast intellects that provide us with Knowledge to
>> live our lives by do it all the time.
>
> Yes. Here you seem to be agreeing with me?

Yes, I suppose so.  It is so difficult to understand without being
right in front of a person over a cup of coffee.  I am sure we agree
in most things MoQ.
>
>> If you are after purity, go take a swim in the ocean.  You are
>> bringing in "original sin" here.  The formation of static quality IS
>> original sin, the way you present it.  The bible may help you with
>> this.  It is full of how sinful we are.  Give it a read, it is right
>> up your alley.  You will find comfort in like minds.
>
> There isn't a thing in existence which hasn't defined some thing as static and this is against the fundamental nature of the universe.

I cannot see how what we do is against the fundamental nature of the
universe.  As I see it DQ and sq must coexist together, like matter
and energy.  The forces in physics displays the way in which these two
interact.  This is why I have been advocating a third quality which
describes (yes, I know, a no-no) the connection between DQ and sq.
Otherwise we are left with mutually exclusive qualities.  By way of
reason, this third component must be separate from the other two, for
it to exert an effect.  In the same way, the fundamental forces of
physics (as we currently depict them) are separate from both energy
and mass.  Most of the physicists would probably dissagree with me
since that try to encapsulate everything int a single category (of
course I can be a renegade since I am not really a physicist :-).
But, we must ask, why do energy and mass interchange.  The same is
true for DQ and sq.  Why?  Because that is how metaphysics works.  Be
it degenerate or not.  It is the game we play.

Personally I do not see this existence as man against nature, for that
creates a dichotomy where there is none.  It is simply the ever
present "evolution" of what is.  Certainly species try to survive by
making sure they do not foul their environment, and such is the battle
between "progress" and conservatism (or environmentalism).  However,
to demonize ourselves for what we have the capability of doing is
nihilistic.

What Pirsig writes below is the paradox of any movement to stop
change.  Some people do not bother with that, and just go into bars
and pick up ladies.  Writing metaphysics is no different from drinking
water.  I do not see it as evil, but an ability that we have.  If
anything, the universe is creative.  We play a small part in that.
>
> "Degeneracy, he guessed. Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity. But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics are made of.Objections to pollution are a form of pollution. The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life." RMP - Lila.
>
>>
>> I don't get it, you can leave DQ "like that", but not sq?  What kind
>> of crusade are you on?  Why do you keep forming thoughts and cavorting
>> with the devil?  You can be free of sq and leave the "suffering" to
>> us.  How about that David!   You are like a director that makes movies
>> about porn movies to show how bad they are.  Your presentation only
>> amplifies sq, something you see as evil.  Why don't you just leave
>> your virginity intact?
>
> Because that is not possible. I'm defining things right now Mark and so are you - whether we like it or not..

Yes, this is also the reason why we cannot find DQ with sq.  It is the
wrong tool to use, since all we find is more sq.  We cannot understand
our understanding.  If there is any Meta-understanding at all, it does
not come from the intellect.

However, I (personally) do not like the idea that we have eaten from
the tree of knowledge therefore we are bad.  Words bring much meaning
and color to life.

You may be interested in the following podcast from Radiolab, in which
the importance of words is explored.  Check it out when you are going
on a trip, or can't fall asleep.

http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/

>
>> As you say, sq can never "capture" DQ; words can never capture
>> awareness, so why try. You are grabbing DQ by the throat and trying to
>> promote it.  What nonsense.  You obviously have not thought this
>> through.  Perhaps sq represents DQ, but this would be a definition for
>> DQ, as "that which is represented by sq".  Actions represent
>> awareness.  Your problems with Marsha reflect your awareness of the
>> world.  This is not where the embracing of MoQ is supposed to lead
>> (IMO).  But then again, we are all learning here.  That is of course
>> those of us who do not profess to have the answer.
>
> Where is the embracing of the MOQ supposed to lead Mark?

Well, I suppose I can give you an opinion.  At present we find
ourselves somewhat estranged from this world as if we are somehow not
part and parcel of it.  This is due to the imbalance caused by our
Western way of thinking where we think we both own and understand
things if we create words for them.  The classifications dominate and
the underlying meaning is lost.  So, in my opinion it would lead to
Peace, Love, and Happiness!  Yes I am being sarcastic.  I do think
that enhanced meaning and connectivity comes from contemplation of
MoQ,but that is just me.  Existentialism has run its course, it is
time to return back a bit.
>
Thanks for bearing with me, sometimes my rhetoric is purely
provocative.  I need to find a better way...

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