Andre the barber says in response to Mary of the long hairs...
> > Mary: > > He goes to great pains to explain that all reality is SQ and all SQ is > derived from DQ. > > Andre: > Well, I'm going to split hairs here. The world (in Buddhist terms > 'conventional reality') is composed of static patterns of value. John: So "the world" and "conventional reality, then, are composed of static patterns.. SQ, in other words. Andre: > 'Reality' is DQ. It is 'a direct experience independent of and prior to > intellectual abstractions'(LILA, p 66) , John: hmmm... so "reality is DQ. But how does your reality differ from "the world" or "conventional reality". What have you got here, Andre, some super-duper reality of your own you're espousing? Can't we just please stick with one term for "the whole enchilada" and call it reality without all this weird hair splitting? And if you can constrain yourself to one reality at a time, please, tell me then if it's of SQ, or DQ. Because you seem to be quoting Pirsig saying its both, and then raggin' on Marsha cuz she does the same. Andre: > from which static patterns of quality are abstracted or in your term > 'derived'. In this way you will avoid messiness and misunderstandings. See > my comments below. > > John: Here here! I'm all for avoiding messiness and misunderstandings. They seem to happen anyway though. But that's one reason why I like to stick with just the one reality. It helps avoid those. > Mary: > > > So, if you are talking to a person who's never considered anything but a > subject-object reality, it would be helpful to explain that reality is not > objects, but is composed of Quality, and if they asked where that came from, > you would be right to say all reality is derived from DQ, wouldn't you > agree? > > Andre: > See above. John: ha! Good one. You know Mary is a programmer and you want to toss her into a recursive loop. How does referring back to a confusion help "avoid messiness and confusion?" > > Andre: > This is the messiness and potential source of misunderstandings. DQ is not > sq. Let's put it this way: sq is a stable pattern of(dynamic)quality > preferences. But this makes it messy and confusing because they are not > 'dynamic' anymore. Their 'dynamic' gain has been stabilized...they have > become static. As stable as a glass of water(stable inorganic patterns of > value) and it is this same Quality, this preference which holds a nation > together. John: "preference" is a good term, but it does make the whole thing anthropocentric. Because the choice of staticity is a decision, fundamental to any pattern there is a choice which makes it's perception exactly what it is. This choice is fundamental to what "Quality" is really all about. So it's a big deal, and people shouldn't be saddled with aspersions, just for bringing up troubling aspects of this fundamental division at the root of all reality. (reality? see above) Andre: > Knowing, of course that 'Particles 'prefer' to do what they do. An > individual particle (like the Zuni priest) is not absolutely committed to > one predictable behaviour'.(LILA, p 107). By asserting DQ=sq this last > sentence becomes messy and meaningless. > John: B-b-but particles only do what they do because we choose to see them a certain way. That's part of our fundamental problem with SOM, right? This observable behavior of particles is inextricable to an observer coming from an objectively existent universe. Andre: > > I prefer to see it as co-dependent arising. Dq/sq complement one another. > > John: Well, I like that term! It's a really cool term. But I don't see them as co-dependent at all. I see sq as completely dependent upon DQ. For brevity sake, and I've still got some catching up to do... I'll stop here. 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
