Hey Mark. I'm hoping the fact that I'm watching tv or hearing it in the background won't detract from my usual poor listening skills, but I'm sort of intrigued by this:
> In terms of Quality: > So we go back to the period when there was no SOM, the moment of birth. > All > we are is Intent (or Will). That gives me pause. For is not intent or will dependent upon a conception of self? It seems to me, that when we are first born, we have no idea of any intent or will whatsoever. A baby colt, a baby cat, a baby camel, a baby man, must all be picked up, coddled, licked and wiped down, by a mother. The intent or will to live, comes initially from without. We're biological programmed to respond appropriately to sensory inputs of murmuring, nudging and feeding, but our biology must have something outside provided, or we won't come to "be". We don't develop will on our own in isolation. We are social creations, from the start. There is no "i" to will, till it is created by social process. a social process that keeps going. Or it should anyway. intellectually chosen, manipulated and guided social process. > That is direct, full Quality. Then we grow and > adapt, we are taught the social part, we learn language. While intention > is > still there it becomes simplified by communication. When you say "direct, full Quality", you are right, if a moment is frozen in time. There is an organism, and there is an enviornment. A fetus and a womb. Pure and direct Quality because there is no strife, suffering or mismatch between the fetus and the womb, organism and its environment, thus, no realizable difference. There is no self, or self-realization in this pure static quality, and in order for the story to have meaning, suffering must enter the picture. Knowledge of good evil arises the moment the womb contracts and the fetus draws breath. And in the end, we deem this a good thing. A process worth continuing and we keep having babies and keep making stories. The part that somehow makes suffering worth the living - the story that creates meaning - that's what I'd call "pure direct Quality". > Individual > consciousness is born through that mirror. We accept thinking in words > because we prepare ourselves to communicate with others, which is the > reflection of our own selves. We no longer play in wonder. > > speak for yerself, white man :-) Quality becomes a relationship between: the social level, not the > subjective. But it is not grander, just different, and perhaps much > simpler. That process of simplification is called intellect, which then > relies on science and logic which is only a small part of the experience, > but we are bewitched by it because of communication, the social dominates > the personal. > > as I said. :-) I can't quite picture intellect as simplification. So often it seems to me that intellect just complicates things. "Man, would you just drop those high-falutin' terms and DIG it.?" I just saw Brandon Loyd, #84 stretching out and catching a 59 yard pass at the back of the endzone to put the Broncos on the board with 50 seconds to go to the half. That was definitely a quality play. I don't know if that's a detraction from my rhetorical point, or clarifies what I mean when I define intellect as romantic and classical patterns in a blend - art that makes sense (meaning) and science that is not ugly (serves artistic purpose) - There are ways to artistically conceptualize reality that are short hand communications for what would take a long, long time with purely logical and rational argumentation. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a conceptualization of a realization can be as big as the universe. > And so, what of the original intention? Ah, well "original intention". Don't mind about those. So much heartache is caused by over-attachment to original intention. Your better off focused upon current intention. > These days we say it is survival, > as if that explains everything. So we are born to survive, nice, but a > little backwards. We survive because we are born seems more likely. And > so, what of the original intention? Can it be found in Religion, in > Scientism, in Metaphysics? Perhaps we still are the original intention, it > just seems so damn boring sometimes. > > Well if you're looking for excitement, Mark. I can point you to a planet absolutely chock full of exciting surprises and creative possibilities. Just look down. > And the loss of novelty comes from memory. We live in that memory, like > living in the tail of a comet, not in its leading front. We get caught in > the frozen debris which is but the spent comet, looking backwards and > trying > to divine what lays ahead. And we wonder where is Quality? Just turn > around, it is right in front. Clean those doors of perception. And that, > is complete undiluted empiricism. > > Cheers, > Mark > > Well, I see we do agree completely. Stop looking backward, just turn around. That's where you'll see Quality. Amen. b-day boy john 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
