[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

Thanks Joe!

At least you seem to understand, as opposed to the "emotion free"
individuals who try to encapsulate the emotions into some intellectual
paradigm.  What a static world completely bereft of any dynamic
values...!   I am with you all the way, since you seem to be ahead of
many in your awareness of Quality.  I learn much from you, so thanks
again.

Mark

On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> Wow!
>
> Joe
>
>
> On 3/2/12 8:56 AM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 ³not D,D,K² with the ³D,D,K.²  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
>>>
>> 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
>
>
> 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