Hello everyone On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 1:09 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > Thank you for your response. I read the passage you provide over 35 > years ago (my how time flies). I understood it then, and chose to see > the world that way. Many of us conspired in this at that time, and > all went different directions with their thoughts. Mine took me to > dark places that I wouldn't wish on anyone, but I escaped the > temporary paranoid fate of Pirsig's travels, and did not need my brain > reset. > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >>> Originally I used the term in order to understand what Marsha meant by >>> Process. Since Gravitation and Quality are similar in their uses in >>> metaphysics, I was wondering whether Quality was a process. What are >>> your thoughts on this subject? >> >> Dan: >> >> Well, first of all, I don't think you're grasping the significance of >> what RMP is saying about gravity in ZMM, so please allow me to quote a >> few lines: >> > > >> >> ``Why does everybody believe in the law of gravity then?'' >> >> ``Mass hypnosis. In a very orthodox form known as `education.''' >> >> Dan comments: >> >> Now, when we think of gravity (or the law of gravity, they're >> interchangeable) we tend to think of a physical process, which is what >> you seem to be doing. The meaning of the term "gravity" isn't you >> falling down when you trip, though. The meaning of gravity is all in >> your head. It is a ghost of reason. It is the result of your >> indoctrination, otherwise known as education, informing you on the >> nature of the world. > > [Mark] > Yes, gravity is a physical process. Gravitation is a broader concept.
Dan: You're missing the point... gravity and gravitation are ideas, not physical processes. Mark: > Gravity is to gravitation as revolt is to revolution. I would agree > with you on the indoctrination part of it. In my opinion, all of > static quality is from lengthy indoctrination in the West. That is > why it is so hard to get away from it. We are not informed on the > nature of the world, we are taught what others see it as. This > particularly came to light in China, when there was a strict > re-education policy in place. Russia did the same thing by rewriting > history. Indeed, the same thing happens in the United States, > depending on who is in power. There are more ghosts than just that of > Reason, and it is called a Church by RMP for a reason (no pun > intended). The panick induced by yelling "Fire" is another type of > ghost. Dan: Last time I checked, China wasn't in the west though Russia was leaning that way. It doesn't matter where a person grows up... they are a product of their culture. >>Dan: >> What RMP is getting at in the passages above is that gravity isn't a >> physical process. Nor is Quality. The fact that we "know" all about >> Newton and gravity makes us very certain about the "external" world >> existing apart from our own self. And the MOQ says that the idea that >> the world exists is a high quality idea. But it is only an idea. There >> is no way to be certain that there really is a world "out there" apart >> from the self. > > [Mark] > I agree that Quality is not a process. A world existing is more than > just a high quality idea, since it presents itself before ideas at the > pre-intellectual. Dan: No, no, no. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The world doesn't present itself before ideas. The world is an idea. Mark: When it becomes more static, then it is an idea of > high quality. The world is "self'. It is the manner in which that > out there impinges on our personal awareness. It is experience for > each of us, or Sensibility to use Ham's terminology. Dan: Gibberish. Ham may understand this nonsense but it is so far from the MOQ that it merits no response. >> >> To answer your question: no. Quality isn't a process. It is an idea, a >> ghost of reason. > > [Mark] > There is the Quality that we speak of through words and ideas, and > there is Quality that presents those ideas. I wouldn't go so far as > to say that the latter is a ghost. The former is the ghost of the > latter. For certainly for there to be a ghost, it must be a ghost of > something. Dan: Ideas ARE static quality intellectual patterns. To say Quality presents Quality is pure nonsense, Mark. You claim to have read ZMM 35 years ago but so help me if I can tell. You seem to have no idea what RMP is on about. I read it back in 1974 when it was first published. And I've re-read it quite a number of times, always getting something new out of it. It is such a powerful book, and the ideas presented in it are extremely difficult to grasp. I realize that. And perhaps my expectations exceed the gumption of many people. I love to read. I get started on a passage from ZMM or LILA and I just keep on reading. When I suggest to someone that they re-read the books I am not being arrogant. I am simply suggesting they do what I do so that perhaps we might meet on a level playing field. >Mark: > I am sure this is discussed in Lila's Child, and I will do a word search on > it. Dan: I believe there is something there that points to the passage I quoted above. Thank you, Dan 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
