Ron, Thank you. This was very good.
quiet woods, SA --- On Fri, 6/27/08, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Chance > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Friday, June 27, 2008, 4:16 AM > dmb: > > And just for the record, I do have something in my pocket. > I can't say > what's in there, of course, without bringing up a whole > lot of > complicated theological questions. And telling you which > pocket holds > the item (or items) would entail some radical metaphysical > speculations, > naturally. But I can tell you that I'm gonna smoke some > of it, thereby > converting it into a sort of nothingness. > > Ron: > If it's the kinda smoke I think you mean, then that > nothingness becomes > the > experience. The no-thing of no-mind. I can draw and paint > for hours in > that > nothingness. > Personally, when I'm in no-mind, all my senses are open > equally, that's > when > DQ is realized more fully for me, not isolated in a vat > receiving DQ > like it's extra sensory but when all my senses are in > concert I can > experience Quality more clearly, noticing that the Buda is > just as > comfortable in a > a pile of garbage, a lotus blossom or within the gears of a > motorcycle > engine, therefore "maximizing DQ" is actually > maximizing your awareness > of experience . > > Treating the term DQ like Nothingness, as a concrete noun, > creates a > similar conceptual situation as "Nothing" does. > DQ is not an entity but using it as a concrete noun > leaves the illusion that it is "something" when > it is no-thing in > particular > this is why Pirsig warns us not to conceptualize it in this > way and the > bibles of the world warn us not to create any graven image > or define > it's > name. It creates a concrete referent for an abstract > concept of > "no-thing" > Then people start to argue, war, and philosophize about the > nature of > this abstract concept as if it exists as a particular > concrete entity. > > DQ/SQ are abstract descriptors of experience. They are > not to be used as concrete particulars in and of > themselves. > > > This is the MoQ ontological statement that needs to made > more > clear. > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > The other season of giving begins 6/24/08. Check out the > i'm Talkathon. > http://www.imtalkathon.com?source=TXT_EML_WLH_SeasonOfGiving > 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/ > 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/ 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/
