> Chris: >> This is simply not right at all - I feel. What you are talking about >> is Zen. Not the MOQ. Furthermore, this, I fear, is exactly the kind of >> talk that will kill the MOQ. > > Agreement this far: > >> The MOQ is a theory - it isn?t the Dynamic Quality it talks about as >> well we all know, and it can never be. The DQ/SQ divide brings about a >> new way of interpreting the world - but that?s what we do with the MOQ >> - we interpret. Even the WORDS Dynamic Quality brings us away from it. > > The notion of a Quality beyond the MOQ brings on an > Quality/DQ//SQ "metaphysics" and if Quality is to be kept outside > THIS one another QUALITY/Quality//DQ///SQ emerges. Give up > the idea of a Quality outside the MOQ, the two are identical. Also > the idea of words as inferior is untenable. Language is the sea we > swim in. > >> But it is still better than the SOM. That?s why we fight for it. If >> anyone here wishes to ?save Quality from intellectualizing? I suggest >> you try Zen out. > > Well, although MOQ metaphysically is what contains the static > intellectual level, there is some level-like relationship between the > two. LILA accuses intellect of having forgotten its social roots, but > the same charge can be directed against the moqists who claim > that intellectualizing is the great sin. Here I think we agree Chris.
> It has worked quite well for the last 1400 years or so >> - but please don?t talk about it, don?t try to put names on it, and >> DON?T confuse it with the MOQ. > >> The MOQ is a theory, one that may bring about Better Days for mankind >> - but that makes it something. Static. Not DQ. Not God. Not Zen. but a >> Good theory. > > Again intellect's S/O roots shows - in this case of MOQ as a mere > theory - but from the MOQ we see beyond intellect, to levels > before the "reality as a theory" divide, chiefly the social level > when human beings didn't have an inkling of their existence > being a theory or a mythology or any other of intellect's "logies". > > Bo. Yes. There is really no disagreement with what you say here from my side. What I meant, but was quite poorly expressed was - if I may give it another try: The mystification of the MOQ is in my book a regression of it. For the MOQ to work as it is intended everything has to be able to be incorporated in it and work just as well as it would without it - and hopefully better - this goes for science and all intellectual patterns as well. Now: you could make the MOQ anti-intellectual and say that intellectual patterns should be destroyed to open up to Quality, but to say so makes the MOQ a lower level thing. A social one. Because it is true that theorizing about the world was not necessary before the S/O thinking, and posed no problem, everything just was (The MOQ says that everything has always been Quality, but it has been interpreted differently). When the S/O thinking comes along this brings about the 4th level, and a problem in how people view the world. ZMM makes those problems quite clear. However - the MOQ aspires not to break down the SOM, but to change it, and, in a way to rule it, just as every new level rules a lower level. Within the MOQ all levels must be sustained (and they are!) but with the MOQ as the overall interpreter that brings harmony to all of it. Just as biology functions in society - but differently - in the same manner intellectual patterns will function - must function - in a MOQ ruled world. If intellectual patterns is not recognized that brings the MOQ down to the level of "simple religion" if you will excuse my words. Perhaps I succeeded to express it better now. If not let me know and I'll give it another try. =) Regards Chris 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/
