Hi Mark I guess I would have to consider this in some more depth first. But I got one instant though based on Jungian psychology. In this approach, the first step in psychological development is differentiation of the mind - and the goal is to return to an undifferentiated state of mind- but with the knowledge of the differentiations. One Buddhist monist, with whom I once discussed, meant that all dualism is based on what something is and what it isn't. This, of course, is primary DISTINCTION. I remember once a Jew who told me about an interpretation of the first lines I Genesis.
"1IN THE BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth. 2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 6And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good." What this Jew told me was: see how the Lord created everything by distinguishing between them. He distinguished between light and darkness, heaven and earth, land and sea. And I remember something from one of Jung's book, I don't remember which one, which said, however, that the development in Genesis 1 is meant to symbolize differentiation by telling what something is and what it isn't. There is an Egyptian story, also, about Shu, which has some similarities with Genesis 1. I read about it in a Swedish work on ancient Egyptian theology, titled "with the world as a mirror" (in a sense quite similar to Bourdieu's "Logic of Practice"). But do these notions really accomplish anything? What would that be then?` At least they HAVE TO say something about human experience, because they were created by human beings for human beings. And really "see things just as they are" or as they "seem"? Experience is experience and experience is experience of something only if you differentiate, I guess. With no distinctions, there is only this presence and no more. /A -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] För 118 Skickat: den 7 november 2010 08:33 Till: [email protected] Ämne: [MD] Knots Recently I have been suggesting a description of Quality (Q) as "that which separates". This is of course an analogy which provides a path to Quality, or in other words, a finger which is pointing towards it. Such an interpretation emphasizes that which separates Static Qualities (SQ), rather than what they are. The interpreted separation, which could also be approximated by Assigned Value (AS), is ever changing, thus creating a concept of Dynamic Quality (DQ). When two things are compared, or two choices are contemplated, it is the difference between the two that is the intuited concept. Such a concept converts the objects or subjects themselves, and their dynamic interaction, to the Quality between. Approaching the notion of Quality in this way, provides a shift in view or paradigm, that results in an evaluation of the cause rather than the product. The degree of separation of good and bad concepts would be a function of that which separates them, or Quality. This suggests measurement of Quality, but such a thing can be avoided by stating that such measurement is meaningless since the objects are not real in themselves but simply a function of Quality, and as such do not provide inherent characteristics for measurement. The nonexistence of the things themselves could be imparted by describing them as geometric points, which are dimensionless. Or like the borders of the combined DQ and SQ which are again without dimensions but only describe the limits of apparent Quality as it is applied to specific examples. Personal or subjective sense of Quality would then become universal since it does not rely on our opinions of the things themselves. Quality itself would remain untouched, as a primary (or absolute) creator. In a broader sense, one could describe the Chinese concept of Yin and Yang not as opposing dynamic entities, but rather ones which are separated through Quality. Quality viewed in this way would approximate the Tao, but in a modern rational sense. It provides a conceptual understanding of a description of Quality in both its static and dynamic forms, as well as an ineffable principle of separation. The difference with Taoism is the empirical notion of direction, as with Time. Time itself is a function of the pressure that (DQ) puts on change. Such change creates static dissimilarities which result in preference. Preference implies choice. Such choice is directed by Quality, and could be seen as a vector with direction. The vector is not one in dimensional space, but is in the metaphysical space of Quality. The concept of betterness could be used as a description of that direction. The magnitude of such direction on a time basis, is a direct result of the accumulation of dynamic quality. Such accumulation is a result of harmonic tendencies of Quality's expression. In terms of the human mind, such separation results in the appearance of SQ, and the notion of DQ, as a result of the transfer of an infinite amount of information into simplified neuronal descriptions which appear isolated from each other. Such descriptions could be seen as the tendency of Quality towards its static appearce. The unifying factor is Quality, which is missed, because we do not consider this separation, only the descriptions themselves. An analogy in physics would be something like a magnetic field. If two magnets attract each other, the strength of that attraction would not be the result of the strengths of each magnet. Instead, the strengths of each magnet would be created by the magnetic field as first cause. This would be a flip in how the interaction between the two magnets is conceptualized. In the same way, colors are different not due to some inherent property of the colors, but due to an inherent property of what separates them. Two things appear differently due to the intrusion of Quality. Since the objects themselves do not exist outside of this separation, Quality encompasses them and becomes the source of everything. Another way to look at it is as the spaces between letters on a page. Words are created by the white portion of the page, not the black. This form of description is not difficult to grasp in theory. The difficulty comes from trying to conceptualize the world in this way because our training or education has been based on just the opposite. Such a paradigm shift could happen slowly with practice. One Zen practice is to stop labeling or naming things one sees, but rather to look between such things with a more holistic sense. In the same way, the codependent arising of things could be simplified into the ebb and flow of DQ, or the tendencies of Quality. Just a rough thought, open for discussion if desired. The intent is to provide a framework for easy transfer to the beginning student. I'm sure there are many problems with it, at least in such a simple description Cheers, Mark 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
