Hi Dan, If it is OK, I would like to post a few comments.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > > No. Again, pre-intellectual doesn't refer to the future. It refers to > the immediate present. > [Mark] Dan, it doesn't seem like you are being consistent with your presentation. We use our intellect to describe the future. You yourself claim that the preintellectual is the present. You further contradict yourself at the end. I am fine with that. When we write about it, it has already happened in the past. That is, the pre-intellectual brings forth the future, which is what we then intellectualize. In this sense, the pre-intellectual symbolized future thought. Whatever happens in the pre-intellectual is what then happens in the intellectual. Does this make sense? The way that John is using it seems to be very effective in analogy. DQ is an analogy, Future is an analogy, and they can be interchanged in many cases. >> > > Dan: > > I suspect the future isn't always new. Most times, we intellectually > know what the future will bring. Tomorrow, the sun will rise in the > east (unless you live in the far north or south, of course) and set in > the west. Most of us already have tomorrow planned out in detail. I > know I tend to follow definite routines. [Mark] I am not sure how you can say this. Each moment beyond this one is new, it has to be. Quality unfolds. Now, if what you are talking about is a circular notion of Quality, then that is another thing. Is that what you mean? > > Dan: > The future isn't a moral force. It is static intellectual quality. See > Marsha's posts. > [Mark] Please refer to my comment above. The Future is not static, never has been. If you mean that the word "future" is a static quality, then I would agree, and I think most of us are aware of that. >> >> >>> [Dan previously, I think] [The Future] contains no pattern of fixed rewards >>> and punishments. >> >> >>[John in response, I hope] >> But time and chance happeneth to all. True dat. Written down in some very >> old books. > > Dan: > So it is the past? > [Mark] This is really a strange question. By using the word written, John is obviously using the past tense. >> >>> [The Future's] only perceived good is freedom and its >>> only perceived evil is static quality itself-any pattern of one-sided >>> fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of >>> life." [Mark] Whoah, I am not even going to touch this, unless Hammer let's me. >>> >> >>[John the Baptist] >> The future is the enemy of those who live in the past. I get that. Do you? > > Dan: > We all live in the past. That's how we intellectually experience > reality... the moment past constantly remembered. I would say the > future is an intellectual projection of the moment past. > >> [Mark] I am not sure where you are coming from here, Dan. First of all, it is impossible to live in the past. There is only one place we can live. If you are speaking of memory, even then, we have memories in the present. And, by the way, those memories are always changing because they are dynamic, never static. We create memories in the present, there is no other place to retrieve and modify them. Now I experience reality in the present. Perhaps you are on some kind of 30 second delay (to prevent profanity from escaping you mouth :-0). But this is the first I have heard of this. You seem to have completely dismissed the present with you last sentence, which is all that there is. This is indeed a static world of yours. We read history books in the present of wars that were fought in the present. Now, there may be some sense in this leap-frogging that you present, if the intellect lives in the present, something which I know you do not subscribe to. >> >>> Dan comments: >>> >>> As you see, it makes very little sense to say the future is the moral >>> force that motivated the Brujo. It makes very little sense to say the >>> future is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality since to be >>> reality it has to exist. >> >> >> You can't get any more "pre" than the future, Dan. And the future doesn't >> exist. But it will, it's definitely part of reality. It's ALL of reality! >> Future reality is what we are constantly moving into and experiencing. >> Experiencing it directly is a worthy goal. > > Dan: > We never experience the future, John. It's like saying when tomorrow > gets here it is tomorrow. But it isn't. It is today. Tomorrow never > gets here. [Mark] No! This is not what John is saying. I am surprised he hasn't lost his cool with these nonsensical replies. Duh, we never experience the future, that is why it is called the future. When tomorrow gets here, it is today but always tomorrow when we make the prediction yesterday. Look at it this way. We are flying on a plane on a red-eye. Tomorrow we will get to Japan. Soon we will move into Japan and experience it. This sounds pretty logical to me. As far as your concerned, we would never get to Japan, which may be a good thing these days. > > You assume the future will exist. There is no guarantee of that, > however. We all have a limited time here. [Mark] No worries, I have my bunker stocked with food, fuel, and lots of magazines. > > > Dan: > Well, there's nothing wrong in advancing new ideas. But this one just > doesn't work for me. [Mark] That's fine by me, but I sure do not get your reasons. I remember a sign on a saloon which stated "Free beer tomorrow". Never got that free beer. This time stuff just doesn't work for me. See you tomorrow (heh, heh), 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
