Hi Steve, Thank you for the question. I will again try to explain my understanding of MoQ.
Quality is neither a property of the subject or the object. It is what "lies between". I have spent many posts explaining this but will try again. Objects (or subjects) do not contain Quality; they express it. What we note about an object is its expression. We cannot know the fundamental nature of an object, only those qualities which are imparted by it. I realize that this "in between" causes confusion, and Ham and I went back and forth on it. As you know, the subject/object divide does not work with MoQ. As I understand it, some where barred from this forum for attempting to do just that. So, let me think of an analogy. When we are on a boat on the ocean. We do not feel the ocean, what we feel is the expression of the ocean through waves. The waves are a Quality of the ocean. We go up and down in rhythm to that Quality. It is not a far step to see that this is the same as our relation to objects, or the cosmos in general. If you ask more questions, perhaps I can see where you are stuck. All the best, Mark On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Since you insist that one must accept the underlying premise in a > dilemma such as this where one must seemingly either support the > notion of free will or by default be revealed to accept determinism, > perhaps you can tell me: Is Quality a property of the subject or of > the object? (Your answer will indicate whether you know the very first > thing about the MOQ.) > > Thank you in advance for your enlightening response, > Steve > > > > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:45 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes, Marsha, >> This is the conundrum that you put yourself into imho. >> >> The relegation of free-will to one of a pattern is a common mistake. >> This is a primary mistake that the last Buddha made. Determinism >> results in monism. That is, there is nothing new after the beginning, >> and everything unfolds according to the great architect which some >> call God. This is rooted in a fundamental lack of self-reliance where >> responsibility is an anathema. Even Buddha saw this and attempted to >> get around it. For if one is not responsible, how then does one care >> for all sentient beings? If one is not responsible, then why come >> back as a Bodhisattva? >> >> The opposite, that of free will is representative of the Conservative >> premise as opposed to the Liberal. A fundamental notion of >> responsibility is key to this country. However such a thing is >> threatening; what if one makes a mistake? And so, the pluralistic >> outlook is hidden with rhetoric. Even W. James saw the vast >> difference between the monistic view and the dualistic (or more) one. >> He was firmly on the side of Paganism, and paved the way for modern >> philosophy as well as psychology. Carl Jung also furthered this >> effort. The sense of the Archetype assumed more than one such >> Archetype as opposed to a single unfolding source. >> >> You are sounding like Steven, who contradicts himself often. He >> states that we "bring meaning with us" and then he goes no to state >> that meaning is provided us through deterministic processes. This is >> really the key to the argument. Quality is either provided us, or >> created by us. I know which side Ham sits on, and he is the most >> consistent one I know. Many throw curve balls, but his hitting is >> true. While there is no such thing as a home-run in this debate, many >> choose to walk to base, or get hit by a pitch rather than see the >> light at the end of the field. It is in the bleachers where passion >> lives, not in the expensive sealed off boxes. >> >> If you choose determinism, then there is no way of getting back to >> free will, it is impossible. However, if you choose free-will, then >> you can always change your mind. It is much easier to go from two to >> one, than from one to two. As you know, according to Tao, the Tao >> creates the one which creates the two. This natural order is reversed >> by the thinking brain. >> >> Perhaps you are considering reconsidering your position? >> >> Cheers, >> 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
