Greetings Horse, WOW! I so agree with you!!! I've been accused of never agreeing with any posters, but I agree with you, here, in this post. Yes I do! Hurray!
Marsha On Sep 11, 2011, at 7:17 AM, Horse wrote: > Hi Guys > I read a great quote recently from Michael Bywater: > > "I am an atheist, but I do rather worry how God will take that" > > and I think herein lies the problem. > > On 11/09/2011 05:12, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote: >> [Dan] >> Illusions are a belief in that which doesn't exist. >> >> [Arlo] >> Right. "S's" and "O's" do not "exist". That is the trap of SOM the MOQ argues >> against. But I don't think the MOQ would posit that the (again) the bombs >> that >> exploded above Nagasaki didn't really exist. > > Wrong! I've got to disagree here as a belief in something that doesn't exist > is a DE-lusion not an IL-lusion. > So, to my mind, belief in God is a delusion, belief in fairies, life after > death, etc. etc. are delusions. > I also think Pirsig made this mistake (mistaking delusion for illusion) when > he commented on the reality of the atomic bombs over Japan - but they were > most certainly NOT delusions. > > Static patterns of value are ideas about reality and not the experience of > reality - SQ is our attempt to order reality and order it in a way that makes > sense - or agrees with the senses. But "I's", "O's", "S's" and "I's" no more > "exist" than "S's" or "O's" - i.e. they are all deduced from Quality and are > not primary. IPOV's are a better way of carving up Quality than S/O, but it > is Quality that is Reality. > > So the idea that "Ideas are as real as rocks" is true as long as you remember > that both Ideas and Rocks are both derived from Quality and are not primary. > > I think that a similar mistake was made in the past by a former member of > this list - that MoQ=Reality and this lead to some disastrous conclusions > and, I think it is caused, by analogy, to the quote that opened this post. > The hold that S/O reality has over us is so strong that, try as we may, there > is still a lingering, nagging doubt that S/O reality is real and we may be, > with Quality, barking up the wrong tree. And I don't think there is anything > wrong with admitting this either as this is the reality (in one form or > another) which we have all been conditioned to believe and that the vast > majority of those we know believe - to admit that we believe something as > flaky as "Quality is Reality" is to almost admit to insanity. Look what > happened to the guy that proposed this idea! > We still have many bridges to cross before we are entirely free of S/O > reality. > > If you have not experienced an event directly you have only a descriptive > knowledge of that event - i.e. static knowledge or illusory knowledge. > > So thinking of SQ as illusion is, I believe, the correct way to view what is > statically real. What is statically real is not UN-real but is not FULLY-real > either - DQ is not contained in SQ and as reality is both DQ and SQ then SQ > alone can never be real. Therefore, what is not fully real is illusory. > > > > ...but I do rather worry how Quality will take that! > > Horse > > -- > > "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production > deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." > — Frank Zappa > > ___ 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
