Hi Ron, "So, what IS it?" asked the weary traveler at the top of the mountain. The small old man sitting next to his hut replied, with a glint in his eyes "It IS not this, not that". The bewildered traveler, hoping his search was not in vein then said "Well, that is a beginning. Let's start with the Not This. Could you explain?"
Thus begins the transition of the ineffable into words, which of course are the wrong tools for understanding. All understanding comes from self-realization. Instead of the "fork" of "not this, not that" we are present with the equally mysterious split of DQ and SQ. This dichotomy may be incomplete, and just a beginning. I will refer to the Tao as written by Lao Tzu: From the Tao, comes the one, from the one comes the two, from the two comes the three, from the three come all things. If we use this Taoist rhetoric, we have created the two from Quality. Metaphysical insight can be improved through the use of three principles. Whether it be Christianity, or the sacred triangle, or an avatar in this forum who posts (commendably) on the description by way of three, three provides the third leg of the stool by which things can stand. It adds complexity to the Tao's Yin and Yang (which are, by the way, completed with the circle as three). It may be possible to add a third rhetorical "principle" to MoQ, which may invite more understanding. I only have suggestions, but from Lila, we learn about the interactive nature of DQ and SQ. Therefore, one possible addition to complete the triad would be IQ or Interactive Quality. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:10 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I see the usefulness of "not this, not that" as helping us to avoid logic > traps > > I see it as freedom from obsessing over abstractions that do not exit > in the present moment. > > It is a useful tool in recognizing the good in the now of experience. > > It is helpful in avoiding "gumption traps" > > But > > It is no explanation. It does not yield greater explanitory power > > It does not expand reason. > > It is useful as a filter but W.James Pragmatic method is also a useful filter. > > It is an explanation, it expands reason and it yeilds greater explanitory > power > > What are the consequences of choosing this or that? > > If one exercises "no choice" when working on motorcycle maintenence, > > then one really isn'nt working on the cycle at all because fixing it has > become > > a moot point. There is no longer any reason to work on it. > > > > > > ============================== > > 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
