On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:29 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Mark had said: > > 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. > > [Ron] > What I have gleaned from Dave H is that there is a kind of Mystic > that would end an inquirey with the indefineable and rest on it, arresting > any further intellectual growth. A rigid static pattern concening the dynamic.
Mark Yes, I can understand this presumption of the mystic. Either such mystics are self proclaimed or are given that title. I am neither, since I am not a "mystic". I also understand when David states that the mystical is that place from whence we come, since I have said the same thing. What I further believe is that there is an interaction between the static and dynamic. In this particular case, intellectual growth can promote mystical growth. In this sense, I do not see such intellectual endeavors as degenerate, but promotional. It is my observation that, following the reading of ZAMM, I was able to incubate the sense of mystical in a manner which was new to me. My personal example would suggest that the descriptive properties of MOQ can lead to the mystical. In this case, I would call the mystical "Quality", and claim that MOQ can lead to Quality. This path is only partly "the reading/writing" aspects of MOQ. The preponderance of the path is incorporating the teachings into one's way of life. As I have suggested in the past, MOQ is a doorway into another awareness. To achieve this awareness, one must take a rest from the subject-object method for interrogation and creation. Once the internal "feeling" of existing outside of the objective is recognized, this is not difficult. Techniques such as contemplation (meditation) can bring about this "feeling". Recalling such a feeling is just a matter of Will. Getting there through logic is simply a matter of chance occurence. However once the logic is recognized as a gateway, it can be used as a mantra. This is why I suggest that viewing MOQ as degenerate is misleading, and a misinterpretation of the purpose of MOQ. The intellectual is one of the highest glories of man, and is simply a formatting of awareness which begins with the mystical. One cannot claim that the intellectual is degenerate unless one believes that more meaning can be achieved through the "non-intellectual". No man is an island, and the intellect is used for communication. > > Mark continues: > 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. > > [Ron] > Dave seems to be asserting that MoQ's mysticism promotes intellectual growth > in contrast. Mark: Perhaps. Although this would imply a divergence from what he claims the intellectual to be. One can view the world from whatever rules one has made concerning it, and then claim that another view is insufficient. However, that other view does not go by the same rules. It would be like trying to apply the rules of football to the game of basketball and then claim that basketball is in error and somehow insufficient. > > Mark explains: > 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. > > [Ron] > This really has interested me, for I feel that the faithfull misinterpret > that edict often also. Here I believe you begin to join Dave in his > criticism against arresting intellectual development, that any kind > of description runs foul. > This is what he means by making the distinction between differing > types of mysticism, so there is no real cause to continue the snark > train since you seem to be attacking the very thing he is. If he is > that far off base, then you also seem to be in that catagory. > .. > [Mark] You are quite correct concerning such "faithful" here, in my opinion. For such faithful are faithful to a man made "objective" realization of what was supposed to be a personal relationship. This is of course where the Church gains its power. It relies on subjects wanting to be told what is good. The point of MOQ is to recognize descriptions for what they are. It is to remove oneself from the "power of words". Desciptions only run afoul if they are mistaken for that which they are attempting to describe. I appologize if I seemed to be on the snark train (rhymes with mark...). This is a forum for open discussion. I will do my best to be civil and professional, and I encourage others to do the same. Respectful disagreement is the tone which I am attempting to foster in my writings. Quite honestly I do not believe that the concept of "different types of mysticism" is a good one. What this implies is that a mystical experience can be made relative. The whole sense of the mystical is that it is not relative since it exists outside of objective reality. What Dave is pointing to, is how proclaimed "mystics" behave. This has nothing to do with the mystical, but instead how they impart their message. Since I am not a mystic, I suppose I can't be classified as either good or bad according to David's rule. Regards, 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
