In our highly complex organic state we advanced organisms respond to our environment with an invention of many marvelous analogues. We invent earth and heavens, trees, stones and oceans, gods, music, arts, language, philosophy, engineering, civilization and science. We call these analogues reality. And they are reality. We teach our children in the name of truth into knowing that they are reality. We throw anyone who does not accept these analogues into an asylum. But that which causes us to invent the analogues is Quality. Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create the world in which we live. "Now, to take that which has caused us to create the world, and include it within the world we have created, is clearly impossible. That is why Quality cannot be defined. If we do define it we are defining something less than Quality itself."
The theory of evolution is among the analogies we call reality, among the concepts we've invented along with earth and heaven. In the MOQ, reality is prior to all analogies and gives rise to all concepts. Reality is continuous and flowing and undivided but concepts define and distinguish and limit and do nothing but divide. That's why there is always a discrepancy between concepts (static) and reality (Dynamic). That's why reality is outside of language. Philosophical discussions, on the other hand, are definitely NOT outside of language. For that, we most certainly need words, concepts and definitions. If you want reality, go to a Zen retreat or join a monastery or otherwise go where they don't worry too much about metaphysics, a place where talking isn't the main point and purpose. > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:57:13 -0700 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] cloud of probability > > Hi David and all, > > The horse I am wrestling with is evolution! You seem to imply that there is > an evolutionary difference between concepts and reality. From the way I > look at things that is misguided. Concepts identify reality so they must be > a part of reality? Pirsig accepted evolution. It seems that the > discrepancy you see between concepts and reality is outside evolution and is > a mere active and passive consideration. Is reality conceptual? DQ/SQ! Is > evolution conceptual? DQ/SQ! > > > On 6/13/11 10:28 AM, "david buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > But there must always be a discrepancy between concepts reality because the > > former are static and the latter is dynamic. The latter is undifferentiated > > and the former is all chopped up into bits. Those static bits ARE words and > > concepts. To counter the demand for proper use of terms with quotes about > > undefined Dynamic Quality is to change the subject from dictionaries to the > > mystic reality, from reason to mysticism. To confuse these two things is to > > misunderstand the distinction between DQ and static quality. > > > 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
