Dear Ron --
What a pleasure to hear your words. As a matter of fact, we should
be attempt to the very distingishable theory of Globalization.
Barriers such as frontiers are melting down, money is becoming more
and more interchangeable among countries, people travelling more into
space and time, enfim...
It is not difficult to say that, subtly, my country, Brazil has got
a little lantern, shedding light to black consciousness. Or is there
another plan?
I´ve recently discovered with my brother that there are some sorts
of music that is of an awful critical standards, which makes a
positive effect to the mind - even better, sometimes, than classical
music. Depending on the time U hear it, although it´s not IMHO a
static quality, if u listen to Brazilian funk, you might be able to
control the small little ecology of our brains (or one might say,
intellectual and emotional ¨farms¨) say, on traffic gems.
Be good.
Fui.
---- Mensagem de [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------
Data: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:14:44 -0500
De: Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Endereço para Resposta (Reply-To): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Assunto: {Spam?} Re: [MD] Knowledge as MOQ's intellect
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hey SA,
> Sorry bout that, This is mostly my interpretation. Bo or anyone
else
> Has yet to weigh in.
> I strongly believe that this is what is going on, a paradigm shift.
> It describes they urge to propose another level but due to it's
nature
> Of transcending cultural definitions you can't.
> I truly believe Pirsigs concepts of MoQ and Quality
> Is just as you put it, a culture of one or better still,
> A united cultural concept based on the commonality of
> the of (pre-intellectual/immediate/pure) experience.
> That we all as human beings share in a more universal
> And personal Way.
> In other words as a concept, the MoQ is cross cultural
> By focusing on the root of human experience through social
> Self awareness.
>
> It's tough to say how correct I might be when no one
> Is challenging it.
> I feel like the ugly kid at the party(or the stinky one).
> -Ron
> Junkos puff to morning cold
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heather
> Perella
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [MD] Knowledge as MOQ's intellect
>
> Ron,
>
> I asked you in another post in this thread, who
> came up with the SOL interpretation as being an
> interpretation of culture and transculture? Was it
> you or Bo? Can't you answer these questions or maybe
> you haven't had the time to get to these questions
> yet?
>
>
> SA
>
>
>
>> Marsha:
>> I understood Lila's soliloquy a little differently.
>> I think of her as
>> stating that to name/define something is to kill it.
>> To make it static
>> and kill off the dynamic aspects. And in this
>> sense, it is exactly why
>> I do not like Bo's idea of creating a MOQ level. To
>> confine Quality, or
>> DQ, to a level may make it static. It's also the
>> reason I don't like
>> Ham's use of the words 'primary' and 'purpose'. To
>> my thinking Quality
>> (DQ) is best left is indivisible, undefinable and
>> unknowable, and for
>> Bo's case, unconfined.
>>
>> Marsha,
>> Agreed, cultural definitions of quality kill its
>> dynamic aspect
>> Especially when the cultural definitions are taken
>> as a truth.
>>
>> The whole understanding hinges on the idea that
>> culture creates
>> The individual as much as the individual creates
>> culture. One does not
>> Exist without the other.
>> Therefore A cultural paradigm is required for any
>> understanding of an
>> intellectual concept.
>> There fore Bo is not defining Quality, he is
>> pointing out that we
>> Still view MoQ through SOM eyes no matter how much
>> we try not to.
>> Or tell ourselves we are not. By saying we truly
>> view Moq as it is
>> And dropping SOM we are actually commiting the same
>> fallacy of
>> Taking SOM as true.
>> So it is best to realize that this is the condition
>> we are in
>> When viewing the MoQ and important we do not succumb
>> to the same trap
>> In understanding. Most of us realize this but
>> putting our finger on it
>> helps in understanding what others mean in this
>> forum. And yes perhaps
>> Some of us failed to notice this before. I think a
>> large part of
>> The conflict Ham has with MoQ is just this SPOV, Ham
>> is well
>> Steeped in traditional analytic philosophy and views
>> MoQ concepts
>> >From this perspective. Quality does not hold up for
>> him because
>> Outside of a cultural definition it vanishes. It
>> loses all meaning.
>> He loses it in the paradigm shift. I suspect by some
>> of the comments
>> Bo has made about mysticism leads me to believe that
>> he also
>> Doesn't clearly see this shift and the role it plays
>> in understanding.
>> -Ron
>> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
> ____________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
----- Final da mensagem de [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
