Spot on Ian, intellectualisation by itself does not lead to realisation. On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Ian Glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> And so Bo, Steve, etc ... > > We come full circle yet again ... to the finger and the moon, the map > and the terrain, the menu and the meal .... > > The Intellectualization of the MoQ (when put into these e-mails and > other writings, and layered diagrams) is an intellectualization - an > intellectual pattern ... static in any given intellectualized state > but clearly a better pattern than SOMism and also clearly evolving > with each expression / participation in real use. > > An intellectualization (of the MoQ) is an intellectualization. > The MoQ is the MoQ. > Quality is Quality. > DQ is DQ. > Fingers (or words or intellects) pointing at any one them are fingers > (or words or intellects). > > When are you guys ever gonna get comfortable with the recursion and > just let the emergence happen ? Trying to better define the MoQ (in > intellect) used to be called re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic > (sorry, no, e-arranging angels on the head of a pin) > > Ian > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Steve Peterson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Andre: > > > > To extent you are right that DQ cannot be represented intellectually. The > > intellectual pattern "DQ" is a finger pointing to the moon. Does the term > > "ground of being" help? Like "Tao," "God," "Brahman,""undifferentiated > > aesthetic continuum," these are all fingers pointing to the moon. > > > > Best, > > Steve > > > > > > On Nov 18, 2008, at 11:25 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: > > > >> Steve: > >> > >> The MOQ is an intellectual description of reality of which the MOQ is > >> a part. If the MOQ is not an intellectual pattern, then what do you > >> suppose it is? Pirsig claims that everyting fits into a four volume > >> encylcopedia plus DQ. > >> > >> Andre: > >> > >> Hi Steve, as I suggested to Ron in another post I am sitting in a slump, > a > >> mental block at the moment and find it difficult to get out of. > >> I understand that the MoQ is an intellectual formulation, a paradigm, an > >> abstract formulation. What I have difficulty with is the DQ 'part' which > I > >> equate with the 'aesthetic continuum' which cannot be represented > >> intellectually, not even in an abstract way. > >> Maybe this is where my problem is. > >> Any guidance will be appreciated. > >> > >> Andre > >> 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/ > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6016-301 4079 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/
