On Sunday 5 April 2009 10:30 AM Markhsmit writes to Joe, <snip> > Personal enlightenment is constantly changing and never > the end. It is the path of enlightenment (change itself) which is > in question with all of this discussion. Is there an easier way? >
> Cheers > Willblake2 Hi Markhsmit and all, This statement intrigues me. I suggest that ³personal enlightenment² is the resonance between the DQ MOQ and the DQ/SQ in an individual. Does ³conscience² monitor choices? Am I awake/asleep so that a policeman stands in for my conscience? Can I fully awaken? ³Perchance to dream, AH! there¹s the rub² Joe On 4/5/09 10:30 AM, "markhsmit" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Joe, > > I agree that Mystic is a word that can be used in a Magic kind of way. There > are some people that claim to experience a greater Unity than others. I don't > believe this for a minute, it is all just a state of mind.. When I use > mystic, I mean an interpretation that is based on immediate experience and > doesn't need additional words or logic or math or justification by whatever > cause-effect reasoning is deemed necessary. When I compare physicists and > mystics, I mean just that different approach.. It is certainly nothing > special in either case. By defining Quality, we leave everything else out > which by definition (like that?) does not work. It is useful, however, to see > how different approaches may mean (whatever that means..) the same thing. It > is by unifying all of this that perhaps a common understanding can be reached > which can then lead to other things (evolution of thought, or perhaps thought > has no evolution). Personal enlightenment is constantly changing and never > the end. It is the path of enlightenment (change itself) which is in question > with all of this discussion. Is there an easier way? > > Cheers, > > Willblake2 > > On Apr 3, 2009, at 12:48:22 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality > Date: April 3, 2009 12:48:22 PM PDT > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Hi Markhsmit, > > Your happiness is contagious. I don't like the word "mystic." It is too > close to magic, or imaginary. I prefer "instinctive" which gives body to > the word "undefined", and makes training like education, and levels of DQ > useful. How can you train a mystic? "Evolution" remains undefined and I > have to appeal to order to use DQ, which requires a further evolution. IMO > "Absolute (quality)" is a metaphor from social awareness, I am king! > Intellectual quality is undefined at the social level. It seems I have to > posit "personal enlightenment" to reveal the existence DQ beyond intellect. > > Joe > > > On 4/2/09 5:52 PM, "markhsmit" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I have been happily reading Joe's use of active, passive, and neutral, to >> help >> paint Quality or its subsets. Another way to look at manifestation, is how >> the Vedantins did. Our misperception is a result of veiling, projecting, and >> revealing. Scientifically, misperception (illusion) is through time, space, >> and causation. Modern physics is using equations to break through the >> misperception to show that perhaps The absolute (Quality) is changeless, >> infinite, and undivided, which shows through because of its revealing powery. >> According to John Dobbs >> (http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html), >> which I read a while back and am paraphrasing, Absolute reality can be >> interpreted by what shows through (or is behind) our apparitional view.. >> Mystics and physicists are both describing the same thing using different >> languages. >> >> Willblake2 >> >> >> On Apr 2, 2009, at 3:44:08 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tuesday 2 April Krimel writes to Joe: >> >> <snip> >>> [Krimel] >>> There seems to be a math epidemic. I suspect that your equations >>> might mesh with Andre's somehow but I don't see how attaching >>> numbers supports the idea of an undefined DQ. Quality is undefined. >>> DQ is change. >> >> High all, >> >> Is a manifestation the same as order? Quality is DQ/SQ. DQ represents >> order, evolution, SQ represents a manifestation within an order. Logic is >> tricky in an individual manifestation and we have courts of law. >> >> Mathematics carries an aura for logic which is unassailable except for its >> premises. Figures don¹t lie, but liars can figure. I want to make a >> distinction between a description of an individual DQ/SQ moral order, and a >> manifestation within that order which is also DQ/SQ. >> >> The individual responds to law. I manifest in three ways active, passive, >> neutral. Laws for an individual being are laws for manifestations. I don¹t >> get put in prison for breaking a law of evolution. I live I die! >> >> Evolution is an order in existence! Behavior is an order of manifestation, >> active, passive or neutral. Consciousness is DQ at the social level. SOL is >> DQ at the Intellectual level. >> >> At the social level DQ is an undefined social aspect of an evolutionary >> order in existence. The result is a law of order with the appeal to 4 or 7 >> laws. I manifest as lawful, unlawful, or biding my time (asleep) at the >> individual level. >> >> Joe >> >> >> On 4/1/09 5:48 PM, "Krimel" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> [Krimel] >>> OK but I don't think DQ is undefined. Quality is undefined. I think >>> Pirsig conflated the two out of enthusiasm and others follow out of >>> blind obedience. >>> >>> [Joe] >>> [+1 (defined SQ) +0 (undefined DQ)] -1 (defined level of evolution) = 0.. In >>> a MOQ manifestation in a level of evolution, the individual is negated and >>> undefined DQ is in an order of morality, existence. >>> >>> [Joe] >>> If DQ is defined +1 (defined DQ) + 1 defined SQ = 2 outside of order.. Who >>> knows what evolution means with 2 in 0 order. >>> >>> +0 undefined DQ +1 defined SQ + 0 order = 1 individual manifestation, the >>> order is unnamed. >>> >>> [Krimel] >>> There seems to be a math epidemic. I suspect that your equations might mesh >>> with Andre's somehow but I don't see how attaching numbers supports the idea >>> of an undefined DQ. Quality is undefined. DQ is change. >>> >>> 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/ > > > 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/
