[MD] lila's soliloquy

[118]

Hi Tuukka,
As I just explained to Marsha, I believe the core of MoQ is to present
a metaphysics where sq and DQ are distinct.  Most people in this world
have no idea what "DQ" or "sq" are, so they do not live as if they are
distinct.  It is within MoQ that the distinction is made.  For me it
just doesn't make sense why somebody would say that the distinction is
not valid, in this forum.  The distinction did not exist until Pirsig
made it up.

Of course this form of distinction is in all the great metaphysics of
the world, it is just not pointed to as DQ and sq.  Metaphysics is a
structure.  We create concepts and then build on them.  Why is it
necessary to throw these concepts away by saying that there is no
distinction between them?  It is precisely the distinction which
brings meaning, otherwise we are put back to a time before we read
Lila.

Anyway, that is my 2 cents (or whatever currency you use over there :-))

Cheers,
Mark

On 3/28/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark, Marsha
>
> what Marsha is doing here, is, I contend, the core of MOQ. The core of
> MOQ is to think and live like that. The further theoretical
> investigations are useful in various ways, but they are not the essence
> of MOQ. At least not for anyone who doesn't take an unusually profound
> delight in manipulating abstract concepts. Rather, they serve as
> justification for the stance that it's not troublesome, dumb or even
> confusing to think and live like that. Rigorous formulation of the
> theory of MOQ may silence some of the skeptics, and maybe have
> unprecedented applications in the future, but it's not living the MOQ.
>
> -Tuukka
>
>
>
> 28.3.2012 11:50, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:
>> Mark, Marsha
>>
>> Sorry for posting a short one. I try to not do that often. But I think
>> all Marsha's answers here are good. She's not making any mistakes that
>> I know of. Again, sentences like:
>>
>> "Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality, Dynamic Quality is
>> not other than static quality."
>>
>> I'd say a slightly different thing: "Static quality is not other than
>> Dynamic Quality, static quality is not same as Dynamic Quality" for
>> clarity. But that's just minor tweaking.
>>
>> What I ecspecially like in these answers is that they are very
>> compact, yet the point is clear.
>>
>>
>> -Tuukka
>>
>>
>>
>> 28.3.2012 11:27, MarshaV wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 11:16 PM, 118<ununoctiums at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>> This makes sense to me.  For you is thinking just static or does it
>>>> have a dynamic component?
>>> I cannot give an either/or answer.  Static quality is not other than
>>> Dynamic Quality, Dynamic Quality is not other than static quality.
>>>
>>>
>>>> For me, most of thinking is following DQ, it is only when we
>>>> "objectivize" it for the purposes of exchange (words) that it is
>>>> temporarily static.  Our thinking is much more than words.
>>> I might say patterns, even intellectual patterns, are much more than
>>> words.  And I might say that human experience is much more than
>>> concepts and percepts.  My definition of self/no-self includes
>>> Dynamic Quality.
>>>
>>>
>>>> An analogy would be to create value into an object through money.
>>>> The value itself is not money, but we temporarily objectivize it
>>>> with money.  Once we obtain something of value, the money is not
>>>> important.  At least in theory.
>>> Hmmm. It might be a workable theory.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We follow DQ whether we like it or not, the point is to realize this
>>>> and revel in it.  This is Zen, in my opinion.
>>> I don't know.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is simply a realization, and as such it is "nothing much", yet it
>>>> is everything.
>>> Yes, I cannot disagree with this statement.  But knowing bikes can be
>>> ridden is not the same as knowing the experience of riding a bike.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Enlightenment is realization, nothing changes.  We follow DQ, and
>>>> isn't it wonderful!!
>>> Hmmmmmmmm.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>>>> Mark
>>> Marsha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 6:20 PM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not "whatever you like", but "whatever you think".  First with
>>>>> your question you create a world (and self) in time and space, and
>>>>> then you are bound to search and create answers containing causes
>>>>> and conditions and components to populate, explain and define it.
>>>>> Those causes, conditions and components (bits and pieces of
>>>>> pattern) that work best in your present become
>>>>> reality.  But again I'd like to stress I have never said "whatever
>>>>> you like", but "whatever you think".  Lila is pointing to the
>>>>> thought-trap that represents the static (conventional) point-of-view.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> 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
>