Horse, Khoo, All, I'd like to see MOQ Discuss to be more like a place where you play chess with your neighbo(u)r on the street. Open to all, civilised and intellectual fun. When someone with Khoo's insight, calmness and balance, feels that he has to resign from MD then this should be considered a warning sign to be taken seriously.
In a bid to help improve things in this regard (and, in particular, to take some heat out of this DQ vs Intellect debate), I have now published Paul Turner's new paper about this issue at robertpirsig.org. Paul says: 'I've updated my "Two Theses" post from 2005 and changed it to "Two Contexts" which seems more appropriate. Looking at the MD lately I think a lot of time is wasted by people arguing from one context against the other so I hope this helps reduce that in some way.' Paul's paper can be found here: http://www.robertpirsig.org/Two%20Contexts%20of%20the%20MOQ.htm I hope this encourages you to stay Khoo. I read every single one of your posts and learn something from nearly every single one. Take care, Ant ---------------------------------------- Horse stated June 7th 2013: > Khoo, before you go (and it's my sincere wish that you don't) could you > explain to me how one comes to a mystic understanding through intellect? > Neither myself, DMB, Ron, Arlo etc. etc. wish to denigrate DQ or subsume > it within Intellect. > The problem here is that some do not appear to understand the nature of > a philosophical discussion group. I have, I believe, experienced DQ > through both music and Iaido and I certainly have no wish to dismiss DQ > as irrelevant or otherwise. It was also DMB who managed to get it > through my thick skull that DQ is central to Quality so I know damn well > that he understands the DQ/Quality relationship. > However, using something called a 'DQ perspective' or claiming to be a > mystic in order to trash intellect is also immoral within an > intellectual environment. > > So if you haven't already unsubscribed please explain to me where I am > being unreasonable. > Are you so sure that like many others you aren't confusing the MoQ > (static quality) with DQ just as some in the past have confused the MoQ > with reality!!! > Yes, DQ is central to Quality but the MoQ is not a synonym for Quality - > or do you believe otherwise? > > Cheers > > Horse > > > On 07/06/2013 12:31, [email protected] wrote: Dear all, Looks like this eureka moment is too much for some to handle. >From the point of view of Eastern Philosophy, there is no denial of intellect, >but merely placing it in its proper place. But from the point of view of Western intellect, there seems to be a great fear of mysticism derived from self introspection. This is its great limitation. RMP has endeavoured to provide a place for it in the expansion of intellect by including Quality or Dynamic Quality in the centre of the MOQ. However, recent discussion has been anti-mysticism and by extension anti-Quality, anti DQ. One needs to rise above intellect to experience DQ. I have been waiting years for signs of this realisation by the discussion group. Alas. the moment there is a glimmer of this happening, the moderator wishes to stamp it out. I post occassionally from the Eastern perspective in what is practically a Western Forum. But there is no place for my views here, moderate as they are, so I will leave. Thank you all for a decade and more of your exchanges. All the best. Goodbye. Khoo Hock Aun Unsubscribe. . 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
