On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]>wrote:
> John to Andre: > > I agree completely that DQ is sq, is a wrong statement. For one thing, sq > is completely subjective and DQ is not. > > Andre: > Oh, and what about inorganic and organic patterns of value? These are > termed (for the SOM-ist's assistance in making the conversion...or rather > the inversion): 'objective' patterns of VALUE. John: In a sense, because we treat them as objects. However imo, only the inorganic is truly objective. Leaving that aside for now, what I meant was that the realization of any sq pattern is a subjective judgement. A molecule is only a molecule, for instance, if one is observing it at a relative velocity below the speed of light. Andre: > What is 'DQ' then John? Are you going to give one of Marsha's revealing > statements: not this, not that? John: Better than trussing it up in a box and setting it on your intellectual shelf, Andre. The indefinability of DQ is at the heart of the MoQ. You won't catch me out on that one! Andre: > This statement within the context of Buddhism is meaningful. Placed in > Western philosophy it is meaningless...and the way Marsha uses it: a cop > out! > John: what is it with you guys and Marsha? So much antagonism. > John: > DQ is a fact, and sq is an illusion. However, its illusions are the means > by how we live, and thus it's not a bad illusion, it's a good one. > > Andre: > Well, without wanting to go overboard on this one let's just say that 'DQ' > is as 'real' as 'sq'. The sq without DQ is SOM. To be more specific: the 's' > is SOM...the rest is subjective bull. > > John: I wasn't saying DQ isn't real. I was saying that sq isn't. The realization that sq isn't real, is what lies at the heart of a true MoQ realization. Not quite sure which "s" you refer to above - staticity or subjectivism. My point is that they are identical. All perceived patterns (static) are based upon a subjective perspective. > Andre: > I hope I have cleared up the 'realities' bit... just a dynamic and static > perspective, I cannot follow your notion that you cannot follow the notion > that there is a difference between DQ and sq because DQ is used, in the MOQ, > as a referent term. Why a referent term? Because it cannot be defined; all > conceptualizations of it are what it is not. You only end up with referents > of what it is not when you try, intellectually to 'tag' it. The referent is > a finger... . > John: No argument there. > > > Andre: > If the DQ/sq conflation means (for you) the 'inevitable sq of existence > that can't be escaped' you are indeed pointing to the 'inevitable' something > dmb, myself and others have warned Marsha against ( and of course denied by > her). What you are suggesting John is that SOM is inevitable. And hereby you > have completely nullified ZMM and LILA! > > John: Heaven forbid. I don't believe SOM is inevitable. Perhaps the key difference then, is that sq includes in its meaning, the understanding or implication of the dynamic nature of all realized patterns. Where SOM's objects of perceptions are seen to be just the things-in-themselves. Hmm... that does make sense to me and I think clears things up a bit. So arguing this with you has helped me, imo. Do you get what I mean by sq's meaning containing the implication of DQ? > John: > The trick, I think, is to accept a variety of conceptualization of DQ, and > not insist upon any one dogmatic, exclusive formulation. But to avoid > conceptualization at all is impossible and not really what we need. > > Andre: > Do I smell a rat? > > John: Possibly. Try and focus on the cheese. It's a choice, ya know. > John: > I think the key point is in the "differentiated", Andre. "sq is > differentiated DQ" puts a lot of emphasis upon the process of > differentiation. > > Andre: > You know John, I am beginning to think that you (and Marsha, amongst > others) see DQ as consisting of little bits of sq. In other words, DQ > consists of loads and loads of sq's and the more we abstract sq's from it > the closer we get to 'it' revealing 'itself'! > > (In Mary's expression): 'yuck'. John: Yuck indeed, Andre. I have a feeling you are perceiving something that is not there because you are interpolating according to your own understandings. True, we all do. But I'm certainly not thinking in any way, shape or form that DQ is composed of sq. I do think that by the process of abstracting the origination of patterns, we comprehend that which creates the patterns and when we do it right, we go YUM. 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
