hey zen, by the way did you get your name from being inspired by the excellent footballing achievements of zenith st petersburg last season?
> >[gav] "And remember all this is clever word > stuff." > > Wordplay indeed! Luckily it is something I sort of enjoy. > Thank you gav for sifting through my post and replying. pleasure bro. > > > DQ is defined as the "flow of experience", > aesthetic stimulus that gets the emotional rollercoaster > rockin'. > > The stimulus is not the emotion. > > Agreed. > > > Static Q is any pattern abstracted from the DQ > experience > > Not sure what a "pattern" is. a pattern is any stable configuration of quality, in time and or space. > > > The intellectual level is about the awareness of this > process: reflecting (upon) it, representing it, > understanding it. > > > SOM is the current dominant paradigm or program that > is used (by the intellect) to try and comprehend the nature > of reality. > > It hasn't been able to do it because of its > presumption of duality - self and other - being final and > real. > > > Duality only kicks in through us mentally freezing the > flow, dissecting it, naming the bits, relating them etc. > > In other words, the duality occurs when the modern > intellect tries to comprehend reality (reality = SQ?) > Or, as I like to call it: thinking! > > > [gav] Thinking is an experience; therefore there is no > subject and object when we are engaged in original thought > (habitual thought is different) > > we are immersed in the experience. > > Apparently I need a definition of thinking. > And it would be nice to know what you would call the act of > "using a paradigm to comprehend the nature of > reality", if it isn't thinking. yeah fair cop. subtle distinctions (come on brain)....okay: any activity, when it absorbs us, is non-dualistic. that is to say the activity, the doing, the verb, the dynamic, is ontologically prior to the reduction of that doing to doer and what's been done - ie subject and object are abstracted after the unitary experience itself. life is not subjects experiencing objects; it is fundamentally dynamic - unmediated experience, flowing perceptions. this is phenomenally accurate. observe yourself observing. music and dance are not SOM, if they were they wouldn't exist. music and dance are flux, harmony, fluid - and when we tap into it we are part of that flux, or more accurately there is no 'we' there is only the flux, we are the flux, the flux is us. > > > The nature of DQ - the cutting edge, is aesthetic, not > emotional. There is a difference. > > Emotions are motivating forces felt within the body > and reinforced/refined by the mind. > > They are a psycho-somatic response to the initial > *aesthetic* experience - which in other words is the > experience of quality - > > ineffable, beyond definition (once you try you lose > it). > > Don't know what "aesthetic" means in this > sense. How can there be any awareness before an emotion or > thought? > As Krimel asked, what would characterize this awareness? > Value? > What does that mean? I KNOW that I have feelings and > thoughts, but I have no evidence to back the idea that there > might be awareness previous to those. > Why should one choose to believe in something that cannot > be explained (ineffable)? What use would that belief be? aesthetic means pertaining to the perceiveable, the sensate. it also is unequivocably about value, beauty, quality. the very word and its etymology succintly and elegantly validates pirsig's thesis: the perceptible world is quality. belief and knowledge are two different things. for one all beliefs are fictive. knowledge, true knowledge, is existential, delphic. it is not literally transmissible, explicable. it is of the mythos, not logos. poetry not prose is the medium of its expression. look i would prefer a beer right now over a wine - that is the truth; how would i faithfully explain that preference in a literal way without recoursing to tautology - ie i feel like a beer cos i want a beer. poetically i could go nuts interweaving metaphors that resonate and highlight each other and perhaps give rise to novel emergences that in some way shed a new light on my being and on the ancient dilemma of beverage choice. i feel like a beer cos my throat is a parched fallow field eager for the inundation of the baptismal bitter waters that will cleanse me of my melancholic self-indulgent reveries and give rise to the voluminous loquacity of a fecundated laryngeal matrix, or some such crap. very very poor example. > > I know it would be easier to discuss this if I had read all > the material on the MoQ, but there is no Lila at the > bookstores or libraries where I live, and I > cannot order it online because I closed my bank account > (I'm a poor starving college student who leeches > life-force and money from my parents) as was i my friend...... > > Thanks again, > Zenith > ---------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:34:58 -0700 > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [MD] Emotions' place? and why > thinking is not SOM > > > > sq is any pattern abstracted from the flow of > experience (dq) > > > > thinking is an experience; therefore there is no > subject and object when we are engaged in original thought > (habitual thought is different): we are immersed in the > experience. > > > > read lila zenith, it is a prereq for talking about it. > > > > your final para is spot on zenith. > > > > the stimulation -dq, immediate exp - is conceived as > being separate from the emotion in the MOQ, as the major > distinction in the MOQ is dq/sq. if emotion is static > quality, and all named patterns, repeating patterns, are sq, > then, within the MOQ, it is conceived as being separate from > the unrepeatable, unnameable cutting edge of exp - dq. > > > > all patterns are abstracted from DQ. the mind creates > static reality through this process. the int. level is about > the awareness of this process: reflecting (upon) it, > representing it, understanding it. > > > > SOM is the current dominant paradigm or program that > is used to try and comprehend the nature of reality. it > hasn't been able to do it because of its presumption of > duality - self and other - being final and real. > > this duality is the schizophrenia of our culture - the > aristotelian excluded middle that drives a wedge between the > essentially complementary and dynamically unified yin and > yang. we don't want god or the devil, we NEED both, for > they are the two aspects we need to marry to get a better > picture of how shit goes down and goes up. > > > > cos reality is unified, experiential reality, > phenomenal reality is not divided, it is flowing - the > undifferentiated aesthetic continuum. duality only kicks in > through us mentally freezing the flow, dissecting it, naming > the bits, relating them etc. > > > > the nature of dq - the cutting edge, is aesthetic, not > emotional. there is a difference. emotions are motivating > forces felt within the body and reinforced/refined by the > mind. they are a psycho-somatic response to the initial > *aesthetic* experience - which in other words is the > experience of quality - ineffable, beyond def (once you try > you lose it). > > > > dq - unified immediate experience: aesthetic stimulus > that gets the emotional rollercoaster rockin. the stimulus > is not the emotion. > > > > and remember all this is clever word stuff. really > there is no dq and sq, just Q - even the dq/sq split is an > essentially imaginary first cut. just more fundamental than > the secondary cut of the static levels > > > > --- On Sun, 26/10/08, Zenith Uzbeckistan wrote: > > > >> From: Zenith Uzbeckistan > >> Subject: Re: [MD] Emotions' place? > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Received: Sunday, 26 October, 2008, 5:26 AM > >>> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:54:08 -0700> > From: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: Re: [MD] Emotions' place?> > >> [Gav]> emotions are static quality> > pre-intellectual > >> exp is dynamic. > >> I'm not sure exactly what this means. > Certainly if > >> someone (dmb) is going to accuse someone of not > >> understanding the MoQ, that person should be > willing and > >> able to explain it (SQ/DQ) to someone who > hasn't read > >> Lila, namely me, to defend his claim of superior > >> understanding. Perhaps in another thread or to me > >> personally. Please. (:P) Briefly, if possible. > >> I could guess what I think it means, but I've > learned > >> not to try. > >> > >>> emotions are psycho-somatic patterns > registered in the > >> wake of dq. > >> > >> Is dq here the same as pre-intellectual awareness? > >>> Emotions are not the immediately felt quality > of the > >> situation because they are defined, whereas > >>> the immediate felt quality is not.> > static/dynamic > >> Referring here to intentionality, I suppose. The > thoughts, > >> conscious or unconscious, that go along with the > feelings > >> are arguably part of the emotion. Excitement is > >> distinguished from fear only through those > thoughts. Of > >> course I cannot prove this. > >> > >> I would argue all thinking incorporates S/O > distinctions. > >> Arosal is arosal until we have the simultaneous > thought, > >> "she's attractive" or, > alternatively, > >> "this bridge is dangerous." Can we have > one > >> without the other? This is the real question. Just > because > >> they are logically seperable doesn't mean they > are > >> actually causually seperable. > >> > >> I believe that the disagreement is over the > definition of > >> whether the stimulation, (dq or sq?) is seperate > from the > >> emotion, and whether the emotion includes both the > >> stimulation and the thought or not. > >> > >> Tell me different. > >> -Zenith > >>>>> --- On Sun, 26/10/08, Krimel > >> wrote:>>> From: Krimel > >> >> Subject: Re: [MD] > >> Emotions' place?>> To: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Received: Sunday, > 26 > >> October, 2008, 2:30 AM>> dmb says:>> I > >> don't suppose you'd be interested in > talking> > >>> about reductionism, would>> you? If > it's not > >> clear to you what I mean by>> reductionism, > please > >> review the>> statements above. Your comments > depict > >> it exactly.>> Obviously you do not > see>> this > >> as a problem. Quite the opposite. You take > my>> > >> complaints about it to be>> the problem. > Apparently, > >> you think anti-reductionism is a>> kind > of>> > >> romanticism, as a kind of anti-scientific stance. > This > >> is>> simply not the>> case. The > >> anti-reductionist does not oppose science. > He>> > >> simply opposes>> reductionism. There is a > huge > >> difference. The>> anti-reductionist wants > to>> > >> improve science and knowledge by removing the > >> reductionism.>>>> [Krimel]>> > Whatever > >> the relative arguments over reductio > >> nism might be,>> what you have>> > presents is > >> sheer chicanery. You simple define>> > >> "reductionism" as whatever>> > Krimel says > >> and then run and hide under your security>> > blanket. > >> I do define>> that as romanticism and it is > typical > >> of your style. I>> would add that > there>> have > >> certainly been calls to change our understanding > of>> > >> reductionism since>> the 1930s and I embrace > that. I > >> am as against your strawman>> as you are. > The> > >>> fact remains that emotions are biological > sources of > >> value.>> We are attracted>> and > repelled as a > >> result of our emotional responses to>> > experience. > >> There are>> several reasons for coming to > this > >> conclusion.>>>> First as you your self > have > >> noted we share emotional>> responses with > other> > >>> species in fact most mammals. This can not be > the > >> result of>> learning. It is>> either > inherited > >> are derives from some supernatural > agency.>>> > >>> Second, emotional reactions are common to > people > >> everywhere>> on earth. It is>> a form > of unive > >> rsal communication within our species. We>> > can > >> recognize the>> emotional states of people > from > >> nearly every other culture>> on earth and > they> > >>> can recognize ours. This is not learned; this > is built > >> in>> and hardwired.>>>> Third, > these > >> emotional responses are physiologically > based>> and > >> outside of>> conscious control. We do not > decide to > >> feel sad or happy.>> We can not>> > consciously > >> control blushing or smiling, we can not>> > consciously > >> suppress a>> startle response or unless we > are a bit > >> psychotic, we can>> not choose to>> > leave our > >> asses burning on a hot stove.>>>> > Fourth, > >> like it or not there are regions of the brain > that>> > >> when stimulated>> produce emotional > responses. > >> Likewise when emotions are>> produced > these>> > >> regions light up under various kinds of brain > imaging> > >>> scans. These same>> regions are > activated in > >> other mammals as well. Any>> account, > reductionist > >> or>> not should be prepared to explain why > this is > >> so.>>>> Fifth, even in cases > >> where brain damage disrupts the>> > conscious > >> experience of>> emotion, the physiological > responses > >> remain.>>>> To dismiss all of this on > the > >> basis of some imagined>> > philosophical>> > >> technicality it simply > disingenuous.>>>> The > >> real point is, all of this interferes with > your>> > >> romantic conceptions of>> pure experience. > You seek > >> to glorify the pre-intellectual>> and what I > have> > >>> been saying threatens your romantic > conceptions. Let > >> me>> repeat: Emotions ARE>> > pre-intellectual. > >> They ARE pre-verbal. They ARE "the>> > immediately > >> felt>> quality of the situation". They > occur > >> prior to>> conscious evaluation. That > is>> not > >> reductionism that is based on the everyday > experiences> > >>> of everyman.>> James actually took this > a bit > >> further in his paper>> "What is an > >> Emotion.">>>> [dmb]>> Take, > for > >> example, the scientific paper you recently > asked>> me > >> to read and>> comment upon. You probably > recall that > >> it was about the>> brain states of>> > >> meditators. And hopeful > >> ly you remember that I said that was>> all > fine > >> and>> good because data are data but I also > >> criticized your>> reductionistic>> > >> interpretation of that study and suggested that > their> > >>> findings need to be>> supplemented by > the > >> perspective from within the meditative>> > state.> > >>>>> [Krimel]>> What exactly would > have > >> asked the meditaters? In the course>> of the > >> studies>> they were told to exercise their > usual > >> practices. They were>> asked what > their>> > >> practices were and control subjects received > >> instructions>> on how to do the>> same > kind of > >> thing. The reports of subjects were > included>> in the > >> conclusion>> of the study. The point of the > study was > >> to measure the>> brain activity of>> > >> experienced versus non-experienced meditaters. It > found> > >>> that the more>> experienced meditaters > have > >> significantly different brain>> activity > than > >> less>> experienced meditaters. To me this > suggests > >> learning. As>> meditaters practice>> > they get > >> better at it. I can see where th > >> is interpretation>> threatens your>> > world > >> view but so be it. You seem to think that the > verbal> > >>> reports of the>> subjects would somehow > alter > >> the conclusion but the best>> that one could > say> > >>> about the subjects' description of these > states is > >> that>> they have an opinion>> about > the > >> meaning of those states. Nothing in these > studies>> > >> could confirm or>> deny the validity of the > >> subjects' reports other than>> to say > that the > >> states>> are accompanied by this or that > subjective > >> report.>>>> [dmb]>> ...the > experience > >> as it was had by the meditators>> themselves > rather > >> than>> JUST what the researchers observed > from the > >> outside. See, I>> was not saying>> > that their > >> findings are invalid or that they should > be>> > >> dismissed but that>> they are partial. And I > mean > >> they are "partial">> in both > senses of the > >> word,>> which is to say they are biased and > >> incomplete. That's>> why they need to > be>> > >> supplemented by other perspectives. And that's > what> > >>> perspectivalis > >> m is all>> about. It says we need to take > on board > >> all the various>> perspectives and>> > sort of > >> add them up. Otherwise you get.... you guessed > it;>> > >> reductionism.>>>> [Krimel]>> As > noted > >> above the subjects WERE asked about what they > were>> > >> experiencing and>> how they produced the > experiences. > >> The results of all such>> studies > are>> > >> partial; in this case because more research is > needed. > >> But>> if we look at>> partial in sense > of > >> biased then I suspect any bias was on>> your > touchy > >> feely>> side. The research was promoted by > the Dalai > >> Lama and the>> researchers>> > conducting the > >> study were selected by him.>>>> I have > >> omitted the book report from your latest class. > It>> > >> is certainly nice>> have to support > one's > >> personal biases with the opinion>> of > someone else. > >> But>> you know as well as I do that such > debates > >> as>> reductionism/antireductionism>> > or the > >> various theories of truth are by no means settled. > I> > >>> am sure that you>> take great comfort in > the > >> fact that there are arguments>> that > support > >> your>> romantic notions but blanket labeling > and > >> strawman>> arguments are cheap>> > tricks and > >> fail utterly to address the issue I have > been>> > >> raising.>>>> The argument I presented > about > >> Pirsig's failure to>> understand the > role of> > >>> emotion in science comes from Antonio > Damasio's > >> book>> "Looking for Spinoza:>> > Joy, > >> Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain". From > this>> > >> perspective science could not>> proceed if > scientists > >> had no emotions. They would have no>> basis > of > >> deciding>> what to ask, how to proceed or > how to > >> evaluate their>> answers. Rather > than>> > >> challenging Pirsig's position it points > straight to > >> the>> source of Value:>> > >> pre-intellectual-emotional > experience.>>>> > >> [dmb]>> I don't expect you to give up on > your > >> reductionism>> because of this>> > explanation. > >> But I do hope you'll at least start to > see>> what > >> reductionism is>> and why so many people > might be > >> against it.>>>> [Krimel]>> What > I see > >> is you hidin > >> g under your blanket. You have an>> > emotional> > >>> commitment to these notions you cherish. You > want > >> the>> pre-intellectual to be>> > something lofty > >> and lovely but you know not what. You want>> > >> mystical>> experiences to be some guide to > Truth, > >> with a big T and>> meaning whatever>> > feels > >> good to you. I think this is the road to a warm > fuzzy> > >>> delusion. The>> function of conscious > >> intellectual processing is not to>> > eliminate > >> emotions>> but to augment them. Higher > consciousness > >> serves as a check>> and balance>> > against > >> unbridled and uncontrolled emotional responses. > You>> > >> should try it>> sometime.>>>> > >> 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/> > >>>> Make the switch to the world's best > email. > >> Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail> > 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/ > >> > _________________________________________________________________ > >> Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The > Wordsmiths > >> show you how. > >> > http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 > >> 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/ > > > > > > Make the switch to the world's best email. > Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail > > 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/ > > _________________________________________________________________ > Store, manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live > SkyDrive. > http://skydrive.live.com/welcome.aspx?provision=1?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_102008 > 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/ Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail 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/
