At 05:57 AM 1/9/2008, you wrote:
>About the mind-body problem and the MoQ:
>
>Everything "originates" from Dynamic Quality, which I interpret to be pure
>consciousness/awareness. The mind is not conscious. The mind is a complex
>static pattern from which our experience comes. Our innermost awareness
>is DQ. Even inorganic matter has consciousness, rather, it is "made up" of
>consciousness (originating from it). The only difference between us and
>rocks is that we have more complex structures because of which our unique
>experience of reality is possible.
>
>Morals are not *just* subjective. The truth is that we cannot
>*decide*morals, because they exist by themselves, they are the ones
>who have landed
>us here trying to *decide *what is good and what is not, we can only
>discover them. It is our nature ultimately that is morals, because it is
>nothing but our value system.
>
> >that thoughts are a function of biology and chemistry
>
>Why can that not be true? The issue is that we identify too much with these
>thoughts and feelings that we experience. We need to realise that we are not
>these thoughts, we are really beyond this world of phenomenon, we are pure
>DQ, *everything* is DQ. This, of course, arises only after identification to
>the body and mind has been destroyed. It is from such issues that all the
>conflicts of determinism and free will emerge.
>
>Akshay
Akshay,
This is how I see it. I've defined a little bit different: All is
Quality (RMP has stated that the DQ of the MOQ is the same as Quality
in ZMM.) So all is Quality. SQ is Quality manifested. DQ is
Quality unmanifested. But All is Quality.
After much struggle, I've also come to understand Quality(DQ & SQ) as Moral.
Marsha
>On 09/01/2008, david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Arlo quoted Pirsig in the "Where was Quality before Pirsig?" thread:
> > "Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They originate
> > out of society, which originates out of biology which originates out of
> > inorganic nature." (LILA).
> >
> > "You may think everything you say and everything you think is just you but
> > actually the language you use and the values you have are the result of
> > thousands of years of cultural evolution. It's all in a kind of debris of
> > pieces that seem unrelated but are actually part of a huge fabric." (LILA)
> >
> > dmb says:
> > Not too long ago I tried to explain the problem with reductionism to
> > Krimel and I was specifically complaining about the idea that our thoughts
> > and experiences can be reduced to the functioning of brains.
> These short and
> > simple quotes express the alternative view quite nicely. See, reductionism
> > tries to explain "subjectivity" in terms of "objectivity". It
> tries to solve
> > the mind-body problem by saying that mind IS body, that thoughts are a
> > function of biology and chemistry. This view basically says that the
> > thousands of years of human evolution is unreal, unimportant and
> > meaningless. This is what Pirsig calls amoral scientific objectivity and is
> > one the MOQ's central enemies. This is the view that paints all morals and
> > values and "merely" subjective. Krimel thinks he's a fan of the MOQ but his
> > view is directly opposed to it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
*************
DEFINITION of Marsha, I, me, self, & etc.: Ever-changing
collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual, static patterns of value.
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/
