Hi Mark,
Nice post, with much to consider. Marsha On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:19 AM, 118 wrote: > Hi All, > > While reading some of the MOQ posts which deal with physics (my favorite > metaphysics), I came across a question from Marysonthego concerning that > which is in between, "not this, not that". This is where I will start. > > Let's say I have been traveling the High Country, or maybe it's the Low > Country, anyway, nothing grandiose, just too many late nights, too much > coffee, too much reading and reorganizing and going full circles. However, > I would like to post on Quality. Now, I'm sure there is nothing new about > this post, probably been discussed before in this forum, but it is something > I would like to open (again?) to discussion (and, yes, criticism). > > My thoughts are, in part due to contemplation of the Buddhist notion of > co-dependent arising. That is, that there is no independent arising. This > is often called Emptiness of independent arising (although, in my opinion, > Emptiness has way too many connotations and is useless as an expressive > noun). Then again, I am no expert on Buddhism, don't have the time. So, > codependent arising... > > Now Quality, according to semantic restrictions, cannot exist without > comparison. What I mean is, if I go to the market to pick out some apples of > high quality, I need to be able to compare the apples that I see. If there > is only one apple, then I compare it to something in my mind's eye. This > Quality is Relational (not to be confused with Relative). When discerning > quality, I am noting the difference between things which somehow ties them > together. Please note: I am speaking of Quality, not Value which is a whole > 'nother thing that we can get into later (all the subjectivism stuff). > > We innately view the world to be composed of many separated things, at least > when we try to compose our experiences. Our perspective of Quality is to > relate these things. The Quality itself does not reside in these things > themselves, but in their differences. Quality is an aspect of separation, > not something inherent. > > By this view, objects (or ideas, or emotions, or systems, or ontologies, > etc) cannot contain Quality in themselves, for to do so they would have to > have arisen independently. One cannot speak of a person as having Quality, > or indeed there being patterns of Quality. One cannot speak of levels of > Quality but instead of what has separated such levels. Again, nothing can > contain Quality, it is not a thing, or an attribute. It is very real, but > unmeasurable > > To skip ahead, Quality can be viewed as golden strands which connect objects > (or concepts, or systems, etc), which appear differentiated. These strands > can appear static, or ever stretching and contracting in a dynamic way. > These strands compose much more of our experience that those simple physical > objects or ideas. > > Now, I have been told that it is possible to exist for long periods of time > in some kind of mystical intellectual state where nothing is differentiated. > Perhaps this is living in Quality. Perhaps not. It would appear from some > posts that Quality is antagonized by SOM. Perhaps this may have to be, > because SOM deals directly with objects and the viewer (another object), and > there is no way around this if we are to discuss such things. By my > interpretation, what we experience for most of the day (and night) is SOM > free. It only becomes SOM when our neurons get ahold of it and try to > reduce it to an expressive form. The little that we do convert to SOM, is > what we talk about. However most of our experience is SOM free, we just do > not remember it because it hasn't been transcribed into memorable SOM (and > memory is overrated). It is all that which happens in between, our outside > of, our reductionist thoughts. If this is indeed 99% of our existence, then > we do live in Quality for most of the time. > > Imagine Quality as that which separates and holds together. It is not > inherent within, but without. It is In Between and encompassing. > > Cheers, > > 118 > AKA Mark > AKA WillBlake2 > 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 ___ 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
