Hi David, You are so far off base, that I don't even know where to start. This seems to be your logic: The MOQ claims that a description is degenerate Since the MOQ claims that a description is degenerate, it is different from mysticism which does not claim this.
My question is what exactly are you trying to prove here? You can say that MOQ is different from mysticism as loudly as you want, but your logic does not prove a thing except that you have made the rule that a description is degenerate. You are resorting to the old logic that is used for God. God is undefinable, therefore we cannot describe him. If we do, we are worshiping at the alter of a false god. If this were indeed true, it would make the bible useless, in the same way that you are presenting that MOQ only misdirects one from the true nature of Quality. Let me suggest this to you (once again): the MOQ is not an encapsulation of Quality. It provides a manner of intellectual contemplation that opens the door to Quality. If, as you seem to suppose, MOQ is a full description (definition) of Quality, then you have not touched Quality one bit. But this is not what MOQ is. MOQ provides an avenue one can take to become aware of Quality. Once you become aware of Quality, you will understand this. As it is, you are creating a object out of Quality and then refusing to describe it. Quality is not some object with attributes, it is a manner of looking at things. This is true with any metaphysics or religion. Existentialism is a manner of thinking of existence, MOQ is no different. One reads the Bible not to learn who God is, but to learn how to have a relationship through God. The same is true for Quality. One does not read what Pirsig writes to understand Quality, one does so in order to understand how to see the world as Value. This was very clear in ZAMM, since that what the purpose of such a book. It was an adventure of spiritual awakening, not different from other tales of that genre. Once a world composed of Value is achieved, the rules of MOQ make no difference what-so-ever. It becomes second nature. By the way, what is your definition of mysticism? Is the observation of static quality a mystical experience? How would you differentiate the mystical from the non-mystical? If the mystical is a subjective experience, how does one then claim that there are good mystics and bad mystics? Are you claiming that what is good and what is bad is something that YOU can impart onto others? Is a good/bad mystic the same as a good/bad piano player? Try not to dig yourself deeper into that hole. Give yourself a break. Cheers, Mark On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:50 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > >> I do not have a brand of mysticism. >> >> I am not a mystic. > > > You're not a mystic? I am. Fundamentally, I'm a mystic. But to be precise, > the MOQ is intellectual mysticism and it is completely aware of the > contradiction in terms when it claims as such. This is where the MOQ differs > from mysticism. It fully acknowledges the degenerativism yet intellectual > value in ruining the undefined source of all things by claiming as such. > > How would you describe your own position if it is not fundamentally mystic? > > -David. > 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
