[Christoffer]
> Surely you must agree that science would be better
of
> proceeding on a MOQ basis?
SA: surely.
[Christoffer]
> Of course we cannot
> analyse Dynamic Quality (indeed even the name is an
> inadequate description) but we must nonetheless
> continuing analysing, and try to understand our
> world must we not? From an intellectual point of
> view at least that seems the highest Good I'd say.
SA: Intellectualization happens. We can't avoid this
event. One may try, but something always clicks. How
far I engross myself into intellectualizing depends on
me keeping a clear mind. Once I find myself
intellectualizing to the point where I'm not
socializing that much with people outside of the
intellectual level, having fun with my son, and
chatting with my wife about her day, etc... to give
some brief moments, or if I'm not biologically sensing
a tree, the smell of burning sweetgrass, or enjoying
the colors in the woods, etc... (again, to give some
examples), then I find my intellectualization is
losing sight of other aspects of life that are of
quality.
Intellect is of the highest static quality,
dynamic/direct experience is of the highest value.
Thus, direct experience intellectualizing,
socializing, etc... or direct experience of quality in
general, thus, the whole of life, the aesthetic
continuum, to use another reference, these are truly
dynamic.
Also, if we go and trash som or s/o, then I'd
like to start by saying, it has no relevance, for it
is an analytic cut on reality that dismisses or
denounces values and morals or at least that's where
this kind of categorizing of quality has lead certain
circles. I know some people want to redefine s/o and
show how it does incorporate value, and therefore this
inclination to revive the value with s/o. Yet, this
kind of action seems to be an event of valuing s/o.
And I'd say once this revival takes place, this s/o
premise, this kind of analytical cut, who's to say
this cut will not cut-out and garbage value and morals
all over again. For the value of s/o is to focus on
s/o and soon the valuing aspect is left out, and
forgotten. Ones' focus is only on s's, o's, and
keeping their separation.
To keep ones focus embedded with value, then one
may notice categorical patterns of inorganic,
biological, social, intellectual, and dq, which is
intellectually uncategorical, dq is different from the
concept of experience, dq is experience. With value,
reality is noticed to be more alive and not restricted
to analytical arguments of keeping categories in neat
little boxes. Go down that path and one finds out the
neat little boxes fit in with other neat little boxes
and soon these boxes get bigger and the lines blur.
To keep categories intact, I'd say this is to
understood that categories are good analogies, but not
the end-all. It might be understood as
intellectualizing without getting stuck in an
intellectual reality. Reality is more than this, it
is social, biological, etc...
thanks.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
