[MD] pure experience (DQ)

[Carl Thames]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] pure experience (DQ)


>
>
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2012, at 4:33 AM, "Carl Thames" <cthames at centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>>> dmb,
>>>
>>> Not the quote or the article even used the word 'undifferentiated' 
>>> except the Zen quote that you presented associating it with nirvana.  I 
>>> take 'undifferentiate' to mean lacking difference or distinction.   My 
>>> statement still stands that if Dynamic Quality is undifferentiated, it 
>>> cannot be about perceptions (smells, sounds, tastes, visions, and 
>>> feelings) which are differentiated; which require a spacial-temporal 
>>> framework; and which are dependent on human sense apparatus?   Dynamic 
>>> Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable; it is 
>>> undifferentiated; it is not perceptions - not smells, not sounds, not 
>>> taste, not visions, and not feelings.
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>
>> Then how do you know it when you see it?
>>
>> Carl
>>
>
> Hi Carl,
>
> Know it?  See it?  -   'Not this, not that.' might be considered an 
> insight.
>
>
> Marsha

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it 
make a sound?  No, of course not, because "sound" is a description of the 
effect of specific vibrations on specific auditory receptors.  For the same 
reason, Quality MUST be differentiated.  It must also be conceptual.  It has 
to be about perceptions.  Even Pirsig recognized Quality as an event.  In 
order for it to be an event, it must be perceived.  In order for it to be 
perceived, it must be differentiated, and it must capable of being 
perceived, which means it must be conceptual.  It is significantly different 
from the "not this - not that" mantra you keep repeating.  That is a 
technique used by zen masters to encourage students to break up their 
normal, dualistic thinking.  It's a faulty syllogism.  If dynamic quality 
was unknowable, as you say, it would be meaningless.  It's not.