> Krimel: > When you ask why the MoQ is paralyzed I don't think > you have to look much > farther than the mystical subversion of it to see > why.
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. [Krimel] I think there is miscommunication here somewhere I am indifferent to the mystical. I don't care if you are or aren't mystically inclined. I don't think the MoQ has much to do with it either but to the extent that it does it is not positive. 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] I am saying that in the immediate context, right this second and the next and the next, we perceive Quality. Is this Quality? When utter is a question about the immediate thing this thing before us NOW. The context of the question IS NOW. This we can and do judge. > [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. [Krimel] I don't think DQ connects to knowing everything or that knowing more connects to SQ. I think immediate experience absolutely is founded on biological senses and that the inorganic does not have experience. > [SA previously] > Don't see what's mystical about this approach. > [Krimel] > Me either. SA: O > [SA previously] > woods, > [Krimel] > asphalt, SA: ocean, [Krimel] disposable diapers, 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/
