> [Krimel]
> I think you are missing the point that we are able
> to perceive Quality in
> the immediate without being able to define it in
> general.
SA: What's funny, is this is exactly what I think
YOUR arguing against, and now you come out and say
this. For I've been saying this all along to you, and
you called it mysticism, now your talking mysticism
according to your definition. This is a bit weird,
not you, this discussion.
I do take the immediate one more step, and may
call it something, define it, but maybe what I define
immediately is not what you define this immediate
experience as. For instance, in Africa, true story,
when people were building, a building, in the forest a
local tribe stopped by, saw a plastic pipe. The
builders define the plastic pipe with a whole set of
concepts, such as it goes in the building to help
water flow inside. The tribesmen saw the plastic pipe
as a sacred stick for they use hollow pieces of wood
in streams and allow the water to pass through as a
ritual. Same plastic pipe, two different
interpretations. The tribe didn't even have a word
for plastic, which is easy to understand.
Krimel:
> Questions about the immediate IS, as in, Is that
Quality? are
> specific questions about
> particular instances. Turning such a question into a
> general philosophical
> question makes no sense to me.
SA: It's a question without too much context behind
it. Are you asking if the moon, this walnut or the
universe "Is Quality?"?
Krimel:
> There are plenty of ways to ask such general
> questions for example, What is Quality?
SA: Who, How, Where, When, etc...
> [SA previously]
> And since it is "not possible to know everything"
> - dq - we could try to find out and answer such
> questions about life, if we choose, and come up with
> answers "to know more about anything" - sq, but
> we'll still "not... know everything" -dq, quesiton
> remains.
> [Krimel]
> I honestly don't see how DQ or SQ apply here in the
> slightest.
SA: Apply to what? I'll take a shot in the dark with
this. You know the answer to this, 'Is dq defined?',
correct? The immediate experience that is not known,
not defined, this primary reality called dq, once
known and understood, well, what was dq is now in the
scope as static patterns. By the way, immediate
experience isn't founded on the biological senses.
Immediate experience is founded upon the inorganic
level, as you well know.
> [SA previously]
> Don't see what's mystical about this approach.
> [Krimel]
> Me either.
SA: O
> [SA previously]
> woods,
> [Krimel]
> asphalt,
ocean,
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/
