[MD] pure experience (DQ)

[MarshaV]

Hi Carl,


On Jul 10, 2012, at 3:06 AM, "Carl Thames" <cthames at centurytel.net> wrote:

> 
> ----- 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.

>>> Carl:
>>> Then how do you know it when you see it?

>> Marsha:
>> Know it?  See it?  -   'Not this, not that.' might be considered an insight.

> Carl:
> 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. 


Marsha:
I think it best to consider static patterns of value from two different points-of-view.  The first would be the nature of all patterns; they are recurring processes:  conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing.  All static patterns, due to the relationship with consciousness, are a product of reification where they are temporarily "frozen" as concepts and percepts.  Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns.  Patterns also pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static pattern life history; they have no independent, inherent existence.  The second point-of-view would be to categorize them by function - inorganic, biological, social and intellectual – into their four-level, hierarchical structure.

Dynamic Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable, it is undifferentiated.  It is not this, not that.