[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

Hi Marsha,
I fully understand what you are saying by the not knowable stuff
below.  I have been there and moved on, or maybe come back is more
appropriate.

This "not D,D,K" is not an unusual way in which to present a
metaphysics.  As you know, I do not care for dogmatic religions, so
keep that in mind when reading the following.  It is always important
to not replace the “not D,D,K” with the “D,D,K.”  Such replacement
knowledge is not the real thing, but a mode of discussion.  When we
wrap experience in intellectual knowledge, it is only for the purposes
of experience exchange.  This is important for us to act in
cooperation.

When the mystic known as Jesus tried to explain his awareness he had
to do so in the vernacular of the day.  When he spoke of "our father",
he was presenting an experience, and not suggesting that there was a
father as is commonly understood.  Instead, the experience he had was
similar to an experience of his when in the presence of his true
father as a child.  He tried to project this experience in the best
way he could.  Unfortunately, this experience then became D,D,K which
replaced it.  Thus the rise of authoritarian religion who used these
metaphors as if they were real.

This for-mentioned mystic was told that he was not allowed to have the
experience he did, nor was he allowed to try to tell others about it.
He, of course, did not believe that anyone should proclaim what
experience anybody should or should not have, and the rest is biblical
history.  This is the problem with the "leader-follower paradigm.
What is first personal becomes dogmatic and then the next thing you
know people are being killed in its name.

>From experience we create intellectual knowledge, that is a paradigm
for a progression of the subjective to the objective.  There is no
reason to bar DQ from this human progression.  The purpose of the
objective is simply to be able to exchange the subjective.
Unfortunately such "objective" then becomes a law of sorts.
Therefore, Pirsig's suggestion that we should not "define" DQ is in
accordance with many philosophies (religions?) that say the same
thing.  I have brought in the admonition that "one should not worship
false idols" which means exactly the same thing.  That is, to not
replace the subjective with the objective.  For what we have is a
relationship with DQ, and not its objective (or wordy) presentation.

Therefore, if we stick true to the not D,D,K premise, we are left with
not being able to discuss it.  This is the trap that David claims when
he states that everything that we think of is sq.  But it is not sq,
if we realize what sq really is.  It is simply an objectification for
conversational purposes.  By not being allowed to discuss DQ in an
objective format, we are not allowed to share experiences with other,
and must remain mute on the subject (also similar the Christian vow of
silence that David points to).  However, with the understanding that
all we are doing is provided each other with "wrapped gifts" of
experience, we do not have to succumb to the "don't speak the name of
God" kind of thing.  For such a statement is dogmatic on its own and
says we cannot discuss DQ.

So, your statement of "not D,D,K" is not meant to be dogma, but simply
your expression that you understand that the "gifts" we give each
other contain absolutely no thing, for that is DQ.  Your statement on
the nature of sq or patterns is exactly the same thing.  It is an
experience you have, and in turn is "no thing".  The manner in which
you wrap such nothingness, is by means of rhetoric.  Any form of
rhetoric is contextual and does not stand on its own, for the words
are just words.  This is why I ask you to complete your rhetoric so
that I can understand it.

Having said that, my "experience" of free will, is the same as my
"experience" of DQ.

I hope what I present is clear, you are not required to agree with it.
 I am simply presenting it as a suggestion.  How this impacts your own
experience is up to your own free will.  Such a thing does not reside
in the brain, but encompasses the whole body as mindfulness
demonstrates.  In fact it encompasses the Dynamic.

Cheers,
Mark

On 3/1/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Dynamic Quality is not divisible, not definable and not knowable, though it
> can be experienced.
>
> Static patterns of value are processes, conditionally co-dependent,
> impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized, that pragmatically tend to
> persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.  Within the MoQ,
> these patterns are morally categorized into a four-level, evolutionary,
> hierarchical structure:  inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.
> Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns:
> patterns depend upon ( exist relative to) innumerable causes and conditions
> (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) parts and the collection of
> parts (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) conceptual designation
> (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent existence.  Further,
> these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static
> pattern of life history.
>
> If 'free will' is other than its definition, what is it?
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>