On 6/27/10 11:31 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (MarshaV) > 2. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics ( [email protected]) > 3. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (Andre Broersen) > 4. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (MarshaV) > 5. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (MarshaV) > 6. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (MarshaV) > 7. Re: re dmb (david buchanan) > 8. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (MarshaV) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:39:08 -0400 > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On Jun 27, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: > >> Platt to Andre in response to Marsha's ignorance: >> >> Yes, Andre. Let's see you demonstrate an intellectual pattern that isn't >> based >> on the subject/object division. I'm all tingly with anticipation. >> >> Andre: >> Problem with this sort of thing coming from 'the Bo camp' is that >> nothing I, or for that matter Mr. Pirsig, Dan, dmb, Arlo, even Matt, >> John and Krimel says (and apologies to those I may have missed) >> say will be accepted. > > Empty platitudes, but no evidence and no demonstration. > > > >> I suggest you take a long, very hard and critical look at the MOQ itself! > > The undermining presumption being I do not understand it. Sorry, but > I am constantly considering the MoQ. The fact is I understand it differently > than you. > > >> ...but I can hear your self-satisfying objections coming from a mile away. >> All of 'us' have at times tried to produce argument upon argument proving >> the fallacy of the SOL interpretation backed up with statements and quotes >> from Mr. Pirsig himself, James, Northrop, Anthony, Dewey you name it > > Argument by authority without any accompanying evidence? Baloney! > And citing the SOL is a red-herring because I have never referenced the > SOL because I do not fully understand it. > > >> ...but these are dismissed as if they never existed. Mr. Pirsig has written >> 'nonsense', >> has 'lost nerve' has 'lost heart'(in other words he is a coward!). Bloody >> hell! How >> dare you!!! > > This is not a coherent anything... Seems like blathering. I how dare I what? > I how dare think independently of your interpretations? > > >> As I said in a previous post: you do not realise how smart Mr. Pirsig is. > > RMP has not supported your statements. He can easily write a post > stating that you, Andre, are his spokesman. > > > >> He deserves our greatest respect ( yes Marsha, a social pattern of value is >> not out of place ...even on an 'intellectual' forum such as this!)but what I >> get from 'you lot' is nothing but contempt for the man. No Marsha ( I pick on >> you because you mentioned these as counter arguments in the past) he is not >> god, it is not papal bull, but there are limits to how far you can stretch >> the interpretation of the MOQ. Mr. Pirsig has made these very clear in the LC >> annotations. > > What you are avoiding is: > > Demonstrate an intellectual pattern that does not reify concepts, that does > not > create a self involved in analyzing such concepts, or does not represent the > rules for such manipulation? You cannot do it, because the minute you've > begun you have divided and formed an object and an analyzing self. > > >> >> I once again refer to the letter Mr. Pirsig wrote to Dough Renselle, to be >> found in the archives. > > If it is the letter written to Bo in September 2000, I have read it. > > >> I'll stop taking you guys and girls seriously and wholeheartedly support >> Horse in giving Bodvar a yellow card!!! > > Do whatever pleases you. Bo can defend his position without > mentioning the SOL. If you are allowed to state that you know > RMP's MoQ correct interpretation, Bo should be allowed to state > and defend the same sort of assumption. > > Or do you want to write a Papal Bull for the MoQ yourself? > > >> Many of 'us' take a lot of time and energy to present Mr. Pirsig's views and >> insights as truthfully as we can. But to simply be whisked away and nullified >> in one short sentence is a very poor use of your intellectual patterns (as I >> understand we all possess)on this forum. > > Many of us 'others' also take a lot of time and energy to present Mr. > Pirsig's views and insights. Whether my posts are a sentence or > 50 paragraphs does not negate the amount of time or energy I spend. > Maybe like dmb you want to call me immoral because I do not agree with > you? That's not a high quality attitude and only a weak attempt at social > manipulation. > > >> I will refrain from using the word 'shame'... instead I will simply refer to >> your >> attitude as very (SOL/SOM) blinkered... and it obstructs an understanding >> of the MOQ. ( jee whiz...Bodvar: the SOL=the MOQ!...where does he get it >> from!). > > Use the word 'shame' if you like. It just makes me laugh at you Mr. > Preacherman. > You are no one who I need, or should, consider an authority. > > > Marsha > > > ___ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:43:37 +0200 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Marsha and Andre. > > 27 June.: > > Andre previously: >> Bodvar says: nonsense the MOQ = Reality; the wafer = the body of >> christ. The wafer = my experience of christ. Good luck Bodvar. > >> Marsha: >> Limp, limp, limp... > > Andre has a point. When on the social level - and on the religon > pattern - the wafer IS the body of Christ, while on the intellectual level > it is an objective piece of bread imposed with subjective symbolic > quality . This reflects Christendom's migration from an all-social > pattern to an intellect-influenced one. I kind of feel sorry for > Christendom because from intellect's S/O view it just looks like a slow > succumbing to secularism while Islam stands out like much a more > "brave" faith, what makes some fools convert (at least in this country) > taking on some Arabic-sounding middle name and donning the hijab > (head scarf) *) see footnote > > In the other words, when each level was "leading edge" it was > REALITY - no symbolism. Once biology's dog-eat-dog morality was > the highest and best, then came the social development where the > various mythologies soon formed and the afterlife in Valhalla or among > the Ancestors was no symbolic something it, it was REALITY itself. > Then the intellectual development and the conviction that we only have > subjective access to the objective world and now the intellect- > interpreters of the MOQ are dead sure of it being another subjective > theoretical - now called "static" - interpretation of an objective - now > called "Quality" - reality. > > What's for sure is that the Quality Reality will have as many facets as > SOM had and the example of the wafer as Christ's body on the social > level and as mere matter (with symbolic quality) on the intellectual - > i.e. all levels having had their hey-day as top notch and as such what > defines reality - is just one among an infinite number of ways to see it. > Looking back; After having entered the intellectual reality the effected > mankind were still social beings, but their societies were fundamentally > changed by their knowing the higher context and - likewise - after > having entered the Quality Reality we will still be intellectual beings but > that level will be fundamentally altered by the knowledge. But alas this > will be a long haul, the majority of this discussion seems hell bent on > the intellectual, symbolic MOQ, > > Bodvar > > > *) This is another example of MOQ's explanatory power, but also an > example that t it must be SOL-interpreted to achieve that power. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:45:52 +0200 > From: Andre Broersen <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Marsha to John about the challenge to Andre: > > John: > > Zen and Art and sometimes Motorcycle Maintenance. > > Marsha: > > I've never made sense to your understanding of the levels > which seem unique to you. Motorcycle maintenance requires, > more than anything else, forgetting intellectual patterns and > using mindfulness. But I've never performed motorcycle > maintenance; maybe as Dan. > > Andre: > Point proven... see John? You come up with an intellectual pattern that points > to the non S/O pattern and Marsha is lost. Motorcycle maintenance requires > intellectual patterns AND the code of art. > > PS; the cycle you are working on is you. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:46:38 -0400 > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On Jun 27, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: > >> Marsha to Andre: >> >> There is value in rationality and the scientific processes. But if you >> want DQ and a higher morality follow RMP's pointing:... >> >> Andre: >> Yes Marsha. I understand! So what are you telling me? (Or rather, >> since I am not convinced you are talking to me but continue your >> soliloquize): what are you trying to convince yourself of? > > I suggest you take a long, very hard and critical look at the MOQ itself to > figure it out what RMP meant by: > > While sustaining biological and social patterns > Kill all intellectual patterns. > Kill them completely > And then follow Dynamic Quality > And morality will be served. > (LILA, Chapter 32) > > Notice he didn't say improve or expand intellectual patterns to serve > morality. > > > > Marsha > > ___ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:49:57 -0400 > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On Jun 27, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: > >> Marsha to John about the challenge to Andre: >> >> John: >> >> Zen and Art and sometimes Motorcycle Maintenance. >> >> Marsha: >> >> I've never made sense to your understanding of the levels >> which seem unique to you. Motorcycle maintenance requires, >> more than anything else, forgetting intellectual patterns and >> using mindfulness. But I've never performed motorcycle >> maintenance; maybe as Dan. >> >> Andre: >> Point proven... see John? You come up with an intellectual pattern >> that points to the non S/O pattern and Marsha is lost. Motorcycle >> maintenance requires intellectual patterns AND the code of art. > > > John has talked of defining the fourth level > as the Philosophical Level which would seem > to be a major change. > > >> PS; the cycle you are working on is you. > > So why do you seen to get off on working on > others? > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:56:46 -0400 > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > Bo, > > Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience)! > > To associate your statements with a symbol of the Catholic > transubstantiation was I thought a limp attempt to discredit > you. > > Marsha > > > > > > On Jun 27, 2010, at 1:43 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> Marsha and Andre. >> >> 27 June.: >> >> Andre previously: >>> Bodvar says: nonsense the MOQ = Reality; the wafer = the body of >>> christ. The wafer = my experience of christ. Good luck Bodvar. >> >>> Marsha: >>> Limp, limp, limp... >> >> Andre has a point. When on the social level - and on the religon >> pattern - the wafer IS the body of Christ, while on the intellectual level >> it is an objective piece of bread imposed with subjective symbolic >> quality . This reflects Christendom's migration from an all-social >> pattern to an intellect-influenced one. I kind of feel sorry for >> Christendom because from intellect's S/O view it just looks like a slow >> succumbing to secularism while Islam stands out like much a more >> "brave" faith, what makes some fools convert (at least in this country) >> taking on some Arabic-sounding middle name and donning the hijab >> (head scarf) *) see footnote >> >> In the other words, when each level was "leading edge" it was >> REALITY - no symbolism. Once biology's dog-eat-dog morality was >> the highest and best, then came the social development where the >> various mythologies soon formed and the afterlife in Valhalla or among >> the Ancestors was no symbolic something it, it was REALITY itself. >> Then the intellectual development and the conviction that we only have >> subjective access to the objective world and now the intellect- >> interpreters of the MOQ are dead sure of it being another subjective >> theoretical - now called "static" - interpretation of an objective - now >> called "Quality" - reality. >> >> What's for sure is that the Quality Reality will have as many facets as >> SOM had and the example of the wafer as Christ's body on the social >> level and as mere matter (with symbolic quality) on the intellectual - >> i.e. all levels having had their hey-day as top notch and as such what >> defines reality - is just one among an infinite number of ways to see it. >> Looking back; After having entered the intellectual reality the effected >> mankind were still social beings, but their societies were fundamentally >> changed by their knowing the higher context and - likewise - after >> having entered the Quality Reality we will still be intellectual beings but >> that level will be fundamentally altered by the knowledge. But alas this >> will be a long haul, the majority of this discussion seems hell bent on >> the intellectual, symbolic MOQ, >> >> Bodvar >> >> >> *) This is another example of MOQ's explanatory power, but also an >> example that t it must be SOL-interpreted to achieve that power. >> >> > > > > ___ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:12:46 -0600 > From: david buchanan <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] re dmb > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Yes, Adrie, I think that's right. A "thing" that has no value is not noticed > and so it does not exist. There is a poetic notion in the East that says > things come into existence when we name them. Same idea, I think. > > > >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:58:39 +0200 >> Subject: [MD] re dmb >> >> greetings list >> >> quote dmb >> "Only those items which I notice shape my mind - without selective interest, >> experience is utter chaos." (Principles of Psychology, 1890). In other words, >> a thing that is not valued is not experienced. >> >> this looks very similar with the moqprinciple, that if and when something is >> outside observable reality, it is non-reality or non-existent, do i see this >> correct , DMB >> >> Adrie >> 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/md/archives.html > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your > inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL: > en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:23:30 -0400 > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > ANDRE, > > As far as I know intellectual patterns are as: > > Intellectual Static Patterns of Value are reified concepts and the rules > for their rational analysis and manipulation. Intellectual patterns create > false boundaries, giving the illusion of independence, or 'thingness'. > The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level where the subjective > is supposedly stripped from the experience. > > And I have seen no evidence to the contrary. > > Have you presented an intellectual pattern that transcends a > subject/object representation of reality, excluding art which may use > intellectual patterns but also makes use of inorganic, biological and > social patterns and often goes beyond. > > > Where is YOUR evidence and demonstration, Andre? > > Let's see YOU demonstrate an intellectual pattern that does not reify > concepts, that does not create a self involved in analyzing such concepts, > or does not represent the rules for such manipulation? > > You cannot present and demonstrate such a pattern, because the minute > you've begun you have divided and formed an object and an analyzing self. > Dont' use John as an excuse. You present something. > > Not art, because RMP has stated that art includes all the levels. > > Not motorcycle maintenance because, while such a process requires > intelligence, it is not a intellectual pattern. More important to > motorcycle maintenance would be great attention to the task at hand. > > Not Zen because Zen represents long hours of meditation which > is a non-intellectual process. > > Come on Andre... > > > > > Marsha > > > > > > > ___ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Moq_Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 55, Issue 164 > ******************************************** 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/md/archives.html
