Hi Arlo, On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:33 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Mark] > The MOQ does not present a recursive world. > > [Arlo] > The MOQs answer to recursion is undefinedness, which is fine and really that > which separates itself from S/O approaches that attempt to define away > recursion. In other words, it recognizes the inherent recursion in all > intellectual descriptions of experience and says, "that's okay, we don't need > to chase that rabbit, we can still find pragmatic value in these patterns > regardless". > > Its interesting to me, however, to see how this continues to confound some on > this list. "What kind of pattern is the MOQ?", for example, frustrates some > who can't handle the necessary, and recursive, answer of "intellectual > pattern".
[Mark] Well, I have to admit that I am confounded. Perhaps you can do me the favor of explaining this to me. Perhaps it is because I do not understand how you are using the word undefinedness. It could well mean that I am not as well rounded as you, but I can learn if you give me the chance. >From your first paragraph, I assume that by placing something into the realm of undefinedness, we no longer have a need to understand it. >From this I can surmise that this form of "thinking" removes the endless need to explain. If that is the case, I can fully understand this. However, neglecting to define does not solve a problem it seems to avoid it. We define things so that we can converse about them. Definitions do not form a cage around anything unless we let them. MoQ teaches us how to avoid such a trap. When we create the concept of the undefined, we are pointing towards something. This is all definitions do. That is point to something. In any conversation we are always pointing to something that we are conceptualizing. All knowledge is recursive, and perhaps this is what you are saying. If so, then I agree. That means that it builds on itself. There is nothing lying "underneath" knowledge that holds it up. It is simply a manner of being. If "undefinedness" is your ultimate answer, then it comes from other knowledge. In this case I suppose it comes from the teachings of MOQ. What I am trying to impart is that all knowledge is creative. It is something that we continually create. It has resulted in some pretty cool creations as a result. If one begins at the creative potential of the universe and builds from that, much makes sense. The creative potential can be defined, so we are not left in some nebulous world. My my reasoning, every moment is an act of creation. The whole universe is alive with this ability which is why we can impart a moral understanding of such universe. Morality requires choice. In this way we can ascribe free will to everything, including a mountain. There is no need for recursion in this model. If I were to apply the concepts of DQ, SQ and Quality to this model, I would do so as follows: SQ is the result of creation. DQ is the act of creation. Quality is from where this creative potential bursts forth. This is of course analogy and may not follow your understanding of Quality. > > [Mark] > Think of Quality and what it means to you. I don't think you will find any > recursion there. > > [Arlo] > Well this is two-fold, in the immediate moment of experience, > pre-intellectual, NOW!, no there is no 'recursion', because recursion is the > unavoidable co-product of symbolic systems. But, in selecting the best > symbolic systems for pointing to the Void, those that embrace, and play with, > recursion (such as the MOQ) are far more powerful, and useful, than those > that falsely believe they can define away recursion (an inherent trait of > SOM). That is, not only will you find recursion Quality intellectual > descriptions, it is a hallmark of Quality intellectual patterns (again, such > as the MOQ). [Mark] OK, I can work with that. That which we term the pre-intellectual is an intellectual concept. Therefore, we are creating this pre-intellectual as a form of understanding. We also create experience, such a thing can be considered as a biological process. It is the NOW in which I can find some agreement. For the NOW does not exist as a construct. It is from where constructs come. In my line of reasoning, this NOW is equivalent to the Self. To further this analogy, the Self IS Quality since that is where everything bursts forth; whether it be the human Self, or the mountain Self. The point is not to define away recursion. The point is to see recursion for what it is and move beyond it. I do not have a problem with recursion, but it is simply an analytical method. It is a tool. I would no more explain away recursion than I would a hammer. What the MOQ teaches, to me, is that there is an alternative awareness of existence. This awareness can use recursion in order for one to explain oneself. But the MOQ provides more than recursion. It is a window through which another side of existence can be seen. I can describe a window, but that does not describe what the window presents. I believe it is important to consider that what MOQ teaches is not simply a set of instructions, but also what those instructions will accomplish in our awareness. > > [Mark] > My suggestion to Marsha was to escape from the recursive. Your intent is to > strengthen it. Well, Vive le differance! > > [Arlo] > I'd say, perhaps, your intent is to seek the moment of pure experience, and > you'd be better off recommending activity that emphasizes pre-intellectual > experience (suggesting to Marsha she go do yoga or meditate or 'just sit'). I > am suggesting that the moment you move into symbolic description, you are > better off accepting the unavoidable recursive nature of these systems than > trying to pretend its not there. Lest you end up like Mudd's Norman. [Mark] Through my interpretation, there is nothing to seek, only that to create. You are projecting this concept of pre-intellectual experience as something outside of the intellect. If it were outside of the intellect we wouldn't know about it and be able to discuss it. Through the awareness imparted to me by MOQ, we are always existing in the moment of pure experience, whether we are touching a hot stove, or coming up with a sentence. I do not believe we can differentiate between pure and impure experience since it is all happening as it happens. Dali has an interesting painting titled "the persistence of memory". With this painting he is pointing to the effect memory has on us believing we live in static quality, when in fact we do not. All we live in is this present moment. There is nothing outside of that, there never can be. When we remember something we remember it as we are remembering it. This is just simple logic. We cannot exist in the past or the future because in doing so, we are still living in the present. > [Andre] > Anyway, I will second the notion Vive le differance!, it would be nice if > everyone felt this way. D'oh! Cheers Andre, it is good to have a discussion. Thank you for providing your opinion. I hope that you may find mine of some value. I am simply providing my view as you are yours. I welcome any response to that which I propose above. 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
