Hi Marsha, I am not trying to change your mind, just present mine. When I stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon, I know I feel inspired. There is nothing intellectual about it, but I do Know it. Much of my daily life is that way, I have a sense of knowing, then I put it to Words (intellectual knowing) not the other way around. I know DQ when I am in it, there is no point in shoving it up to the intellect unless I want to share it.
Mark On Aug 13, 2011, at 9:39 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Mark, > > I'm sticking with DQ as indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. > Experienced, but unknowable. DQ is without differentiation, so no-thing to > know and no one to know it. Static quality (patterns) are knowable. > > Alan Watts was cool. > > The rest of your comments don't resonate with me, but as always I find your > point-of-view interesting. > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Aug 13, 2011, at 11:16 AM, 118 wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> I don't quite understand your first paragraph, so I will reply with >> thoughts on the second. In my opinion, those adjectives with which >> you define DQ are all related to sq. DQ is known by your entire >> being, that is: the body/brain, and, the mind or soul or Atman or >> spirit (everything that is not physical, which is much more >> encompassing than the physical). You are referring to the "knowing" >> that is done for the purposes of communication within the Social >> Level. Surely there are many things that you experience that cannot >> be put into words. Possibly most of your present experience. >> >> In my opinion, Goodness starts at zero and grows to infinity. There >> is no Badness per se in this type of analysis. We can also assign a >> midpoint in Quality, one side being positive and one side being >> negative, it all amounts to the same thing. This midpoint is useful >> for communication since it is easier to say Bad than "less good". I >> agree that this continuum is important to develop a language around >> perhaps with firmer meaning. If we assume that everything is Quality, >> then our whole perspective on life changes, we simply endeavor for >> higher Quality rather than trying to avoid a negative apparition. >> >> It's All Good, >> Mark >> >> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:43 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Mark, >>> >>> I am removing the 'Thinking:' from the subject line because it referenced a >>> previous line of thought and my changing a word in the definition of sq >>> from 'interonnected' to 'conditionally co-dependent'. It did not signify >>> a relationship between 'thinking' and my definitions of either DQ or sq. >>> >>> I'm sticking with DQ being indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. DQ is >>> without differentiation, so by what can it possibly be known? What can be >>> known is static quality (patterns) whether inside or outside of "intellect". >>> >>> From one point-of-view static patterns are all Goodness, from another they >>> are a mixed bag. Either way I wouldn't want to be without them, though I >>> think humanity could be helped by having them better understood. >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 13, 2011, at 2:07 AM, 118 wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Marsha, >>>> For me it is much simpler. >>>> >>>> SQ is the "patterns" that we form with our brains. It provides a >>>> meaningful way for us to intellectually interact with that outside of >>>> each of us. >>>> >>>> DQ is not intellectually "knowable" since that makes it sq. But it is >>>> known by all of us outside of the intellect (most of what we go though >>>> is outside of thought, only a little bit is converted to sq). Again, >>>> dividing DQ relegates it to sq, but it is continuously being divided >>>> by us outside of the intellect, for that is how we survive, the brain >>>> comes afterward to justify how we survive. And yes, it is definable, >>>> that is all that we do in this forum, create circular tautologies: DQ >>>> is that which forms sq; DQ is reality; DQ is dynamic; DQ is that which >>>> is Quality but not sq; DQ creates the appearance that sq is >>>> ever-changing, conditionally codependent and impermanent, etc. DQ >>>> give the appearance of predictablility in sq when subjected to the >>>> patterns created by the intellect. That is just circular referencing. >>>> >>>> In the end, all sq that we discuss is created by man, it does not >>>> exist outside of our minds. It is like making constellations out of >>>> the stars. Now those constellations are very real for us until we >>>> realize that we are just making them up. This is no different from >>>> everything else. This of course does not minimize sq, in fact it >>>> makes it Grand, Special, and the Greatest attribute of Man. It >>>> results in music, poetry, and, yes, Metaphysics. It is the complex >>>> glue that binds us humans together as a single organism. What more >>>> can we ask for? All else is simply delusion. >>>> >>>> If we look for DQ we loose it, a finger cannot point to itself, a >>>> motorcycle cannot ride itself. If we do not look for DQ we know that >>>> it is there. >>>> >>>> We create SQ, DQ creates us, both together form Quality. >>>> >>>> At least it is simple for me. I like simple for a simple brain. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:54 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For me… >>>>> >>>>> Dynamic Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. >>>>> >>>>> Static patterns of value are processes: ever-changing, conditionally >>>>> co-dependent and impermanent. (Not independent objects, subjects or >>>>> things-in-themselves.) Ever-changing processes that pragmatically tend >>>>> to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 7, 2011, at 8:37 AM, MarshaV wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> H Mark, >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose I am picking nits in a way that matters to no one else, but I >>>>>> need to drop both causality and connectedness which seem both to require >>>>>> some intrinsic nature. At the moment I like better 'conditionally >>>>>> co-dependent'. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Marsha >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 6, 2011, at 12:15 PM, MarshaV wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mark, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simply causal? I still could wonder how anything that lacks intrinsic >>>>>>> nature could possibly causally connect? What kind of connection would >>>>>>> that be? MMK - Chapter One kind of question... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marsha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2011, at 11:47 AM, 118 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is simply a causal connection. As such it goes from >>>>>>>> undifferentiated (Quality) to highly differentiated (language). >>>>>>>> Please note that language results in perceived Quality. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mark >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 2011, at 1:21 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course, I could wonder how anything that lacks intrinsic nature >>>>>>>>> could possibly connect? What kind of connection would that be? (I >>>>>>>>> can hear my mother's words: "Marsha, you think too much!") >>>>>>>>> Undifferentiated, and non-rational, and free from assimilation, >>>>>>>>> discrimination, analysis and synthesis? Or seeing without anything >>>>>>>>> seen? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Boggles the thinking mind... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:56 AM, MarshaV wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Mark, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Interconnected? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Marsha >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2011, at 3:52 PM, 118 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to make this, understandable. Language results from >>>>>>>>>>> thinking, thinking results from awareness, awareness results from >>>>>>>>>>> dualism, dualism results from quality, quality results from >>>>>>>>>>> Quality, Quality results from language. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> >>> >>> 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 > > > > ___ > > > 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
