Hi Marsha, I will reply between paragraphs. On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:58 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Mark, > > I had not considered that you were trying to change my mind. I did think our > understanding was too far apart for discussion, but now in this post I do > find some things to clear up. > I do not confine words to the intellectual level. RMP has stated that static > quality represents all that can be conceptualized. All patterns seem to have > a relationship with consciousness, and are conceptualized using words. On > the intellectual level concepts just are abstracted and reified to a greater > degree with an effort made to strip out all subjective bias. But all > patterns are conditionally co-dependent with consciousness as they are > conceptually constructed. There are two ways of considering static quality; > first by what is common to all patterns; second by how patterns are > individually categorized into one of the levels based on function. I do, > though, not confine patterns to words alone. That's how interpret it.
Mark: Yes, conceptualization is much more than applying a net of words to something experienced such as a painting of a boat on the ocean. In fact, it would seem that words are the most limited form of conceptualization. There are certainly unconscious patterns which then bubble up to consciousness. Take for example the unconscious appreciation of a painting which then becomes important to share with a friend. How does one explain it over the phone? Difficult I think. As such, these patterns become restricted and hardened in my opinion. The freedom associated with such patterns becomes confined. There is no such thing as objective truth. At least I cannot think of any examples. Words are of minor importance to the individual experience. > > I, too, have been on the edge of the Grand Canyon and felt my myself > "inspired", and you are correct there was nothing intellectual about it. It > was a very dynamic experience, but once identified as "inspired" it became to > some degree static: double rainbow, Maine night sky with falling stars, > sunlight on L.I.Sound, the bat the cats killed Tuesday night, tonight's full > moon, ants, etc., etc., etc. - Maybe you're thinking of mindfulness where > there are identified patterns, but no words; all the internal chatter has > ended. That's very dynamic, but, for me, DQ is still indivisible, > undefinable and unknowable - undifferentiated, indeterminate, unpatterned. Mark: I suppose it would depend on what you mean by inspired. I find inspiration very dynamic and motivating. I have found that I live within a rainbow, that is the only way I can see it. All these colors, what wonder! Mindfulness is simply paying attention to the present. There is no time to create words. You provide a lot of attributes in your definition of DQ. DQ IS. Any analogy you bring up with be undefinable and unknowable. Any segmentation you provide will be undifferentiated. Any determination indeterminant and any pattern without pattern. > > I do always find your point-of-view unique and interesting. I appreciate > that. > Thanks for you input, it makes me think. Cheers, Mark > > > On Aug 13, 2011, at 9:20 PM, 118 wrote: > >> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------- snipped --------- >>>>> > > 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
