Hi John, Hope your team won. Interesting that you would resort to the biological programming as if that notion answers all. Who is the programmer? By my interpretation, we only have will as the beginning (or intent if you wish). There is no I, no other, yet we are still present. The I develops first, and at that time there is only I, no other. Then comes I and other. It is possible to train the mind to revert back to either only I, or only other (what do you think these mystical experiences are all about?) But, we can disagree about this.
Now, if you think that fitting something into a box with the intellect makes it more complicated, then perhaps you are discussing the intellect only. But is trying to fit the universe into an equation making it more complicated or simpler? Is simplifying your awareness into psychological behaviors making it more complicated? Is reducing the day to only that which you think about making it more complicated? We need to simplify to survive. Our brains are geared towards focusing on one thought for the same reason. That of course is just my opinion, but I can think of millions of ways we try to simplify to understand with only the intellect. When you define "intellect as romantic and classical patterns in a blend - art that makes sense (meaning) and science that is not ugly (serves artistic purpose)", isn't that a simplification? Perhaps not for you. But what about the stuff you see out of the corner of your eye? Yes, I agree, current intent is original intent, I tried to say the unsuccessfully I guess. Why keep looking when all you have to do is turn around. It may be that one is looking more at art that is being fabricated than what creates that art. All in good fun, Amen brother. Mark On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:51 AM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > 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
