Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear John,

You write 3/7 16:18 
+1000:
the very nature of quality must differ 
according to my individual history and the developmental stages through which I 
have passed.

I agree. The DQ jump to the 
moon starts from a platform of already existing static patterns of value. 
DQ is experienced as the incremental change in (breaking up a bit of, adding a 
bit to) this platform. The content of this incremental change differs depending 
on where and in which platform it occurs.

I may well not have 
seemed to respond to your existential question about how to 
discriminate the saviours from the degenerates and the paths that might 
save you from the degenerate ones. I didn't feel the 
existential quality of your question until now. The way you phrased 
the question 27/6 5:11 +1000 the appropriate answer just seemed to be: try them 
all and discard what you don't experience as good. I guessed of course that you 
referred to your involvement in Diamond Essence which you described 18/6 13:21 
+1000 as a group where almost nothing can be demonstrated in advance 
of undertaking the laborious perhaps decades long apprenticeship to 'spiritual' 
development.. I chose to ignore that however, respecting your choice 
and not wanting to voice my doubts.
Now that you reformulate your question as 
how do I discern a path, an educational process, in which I must 
invest much time and effort in order to ascertain the actual quality to be 
discovered thereby, in advance of experiencing that quality? I can't 
ignore it anymore:
I doubt the wisdom of investing time 
and effort in trying to experience Dynamic Quality. (See also Dan's 28/6 1:13 
-0500 post to me and my 4/7 13:47 +0200 post to him.) Investing time and effort 
in trying to discover already existing static quality is alright of course, but 
don't expect Dynamic Quality of it and don't invest more time and effort than is 
intrinsically rewarding, even if only because it satisfies a drive to discipline 
(part of) your self (that you would rather identify less with).
I would thoroughly distrust anyone who 
tells me that I have to follow his path to DQ, that the part of the path that I 
still have to follow after having backtracked to his point of departure is very 
long and that meanwhile I have to regard him as better, more excellent, then me. 
That's just a static social pattern of value and no more. A really enlightened 
teacher (who therefore refuses to be deified, regarded as guru etc.) tells me to 
start from where I am and follow my own path and suggests me from own experience 
that DQ is there for the taking ... if only I let go of the I that 
does the taking.

I am curious to know more about what 
happens in this Diamond Essence workshop of yours. Maybe it disproves my 
distrust.

I found your new essay 
(Understanding Quality) 
on the Forum and also an earlier one (Quality with a Human Face) 
which I must have overlooked before. I will read and comment on 
them.
I already read the one 
before that (Creating an 
Organismic Metaphysics of Quality). From my point of view it didn't improve 
much on Pirsig's MoQ and even dropped some elements that I found of value 
however.

With friendly greetings,

Wim 
Nusselder

RE: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[N. Glen Dickey]

John,

Mango 
Tiger Jason. Epsilon Timeliness Fruitbat. Scratch Smackingly 
Children Honk. 

Was 
this post supposed to be in Chinese characters? Could anyone supply a 
translation?

AreteLaugh

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On 
  Behalf Of John BeasleySent: Monday, July 02, 2001 
  20:20To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: MD Religion/God 
  ~ 
  MoQ/DQℼ佄呃偙⁅呈䱍倠䉕䥌⁃ⴢ⼯㍗⽃䐯䑔䠠䵔⁌⸴‰牔湡楳楴湯污⼯久㸢਍਍䠼䵔㹌䠼䅅㹄਍਍䴼呅⁁潣瑮湥㵴琢硥⽴瑨汭※档牡敳㵴湵捩摯≥栠瑴⵰煥極㵶潃瑮湥⵴祔数ാഊ㰊䕍䅔挠湯整瑮∽卍呈䱍㔠〮⸰㘲㐱㌮〵∰渠浡㵥䕇䕎䅒佔㹒਍਍匼奔䕌㰾匯奔䕌ാഊ㰊䠯䅅㹄਍਍䈼䑏⁙杢潃潬㵲昣晦晦㹦਍਍䐼噉㰾但呎映捡㵥牁慩楳敺㈽圾浩愠摮漠桴牥ⱳ⼼但呎㰾䐯噉ാഊ㰊䥄㹖渦獢㭰⼼䥄㹖਍਍䐼噉㰾但呎映捡㵥牁慩楳敺㈽䤾栠癡⁥敢湥琠牡祤爠獥潰摮湩⁧潴礠畯⁲敬杮桴⁹਍਍敭獳条⁥景㌠⸰ⰶ圠浩‮潙⁵慳♹扮灳∻潓敭潨⁷瑩搠敯湳琧映敥楲桧⁴潴搠獩楴杮極桳ഠഊ戊瑥敷湥琠敨挠浯畭慮湡⁤桴⁥湩楤楶畤污搠捥獩潩⹮䤠敲楬楧畯⁳慬杮慵敧›瑩椠⁳਍਍潇❤⁳敤楣楳湯愠摮⠠敤数摮湩⁧湯栠睯礠畯∠潰湩⁴瑡•湩敤楦慮汢⁥潇Ɽ眠楨档ഠഊ儊慵敫獲搠湩搠癩牥敳眠祡⥳渠楥桴牥挠浯畭慮潮⁲湩楤楶畤污㰠呓佒䝎漾㱲匯剔乏㹇ഠഊ戊瑯⁨潣浭湵污愠摮椠摮癩摩慵⹬㰢䘯乏㹔⼼䥄㹖਍਍䐼噉☾扮灳㰻䐯噉ാഊ㰊䥄㹖䘼乏⁔慦散䄽楲污猠穩㵥㸲湉䜠獥慴瑬琠敨慲祰琠敨敲椠⁳⁡桰慲敳∠桴⁥楳畴瑡潩਍਍楤瑣瑡獥⸢吠楨⁳獩甠敳⁤潴椠摮捩瑡⁥桴瑡愠瀠牥潳獩栠慥瑬票眠敨桴楥⁲敲灳湯敳ഠഊ琊⁡楳畴瑡潩獩朠極敤⁤潮⁴潳洠捵⁨祢琠敨物瀠敲楶畯⁳敤楣楳湯⁳湡⁤慶畬獥‬畢⁴਍਍祢琠敨椠浭摥慩祣漠⁦桴⁥楳畴瑡潩瑩敳晬‮⁉畳灳捥⁴桴獩挠畯摬戠⁥硥整摮摥琠਍਍湥潣灭獡⁳牧畯°敤楣楳湯⁳桷牥⁥祢愠瑴湥楤杮映汵祬琠桴⁥楳畴瑡潩桴⁥牧畯°਍਍楷汬朠慲畤污祬愠汬睯琠敨猠瑩慵楴湯椠獴汥⁦潴搠捩慴整‮楐獲杩眠畯摬猠祡琠敨ഠഊ焊慵楬祴椠桴⁥楳畴瑡潩潷汵⁤浥牥敧※桃楲瑳慩獮眠畯摬瀠敲畳敭汤⁹敳⁥潇❤⁳਍਍楷汬攠畬楣慤整⹤⼼但呎㰾䐯噉ാഊ㰊䥄㹖渦獢㭰⼼䥄㹖਍਍䐼噉㰾但呎映捡㵥牁慩楳敺㈽䤾愠瑣慵汬⁹潤❮⁴桴湩瑩眠牯獫猠楳灭祬‮⁉浡ഠഊ眊牯楫杮漠⁡畦瑲敨⁲敤敶潬浰湥⁴景洠⁹桴畯桧⁴瑡瀠敲敳瑮椠桷捩⁨桴⁥敶祲ഠഊ渊瑡牵⁥景焠慵楬祴洠獵⁴楤晦牥愠捣牯楤杮琠祭椠摮癩摩慵楨瑳牯⁹湡⁤桴⁥਍਍敤敶潬浰湥慴瑳条獥琠牨畯桧眠楨档䤠栠癡⁥慰獳摥‮效据⁥湩愠祮朠潲灵琠敨ഠഊ攊灸牥敩据⁥景焠慵楬祴眠汩楤晦牥戠瑥敷湥椠摮癩摩慵獬‮桔⁥敤潭牣瑡捩猠汯瑵潩਍਍獩映牯琠敨洠橡牯瑩⁹潴搠捥摩⁥桷瑡椠⁳畱污瑩⹹吠楨⁳湩癥瑩扡祬爠獥汵獴椠਍਍敲敶獲潩潴琠敨洠慥⹮䤠猠獵数瑣琠慨⁴桴獯⁥桷敳⁥⁡敤灥牥焠慵楬祴挠湡潮⁴਍਍敭敲祬愠捣摥⁥潴愠氠獥⁳湥楬桧整敮⁤慭潪楲祴‮教⁴桴楥⁲楤晦捩汵祴椠⁳桴瑡琠敨⁹਍਍慣湮瑯搠物捥汴⁹湩汦敵据⁥瑯敨獲瀠牥散瑰潩景焠慵楬祴‮桔獩眠獡䬠楲桳慮畭瑲❩⁳਍਍楤敬浭⹡䄠瑦牥搠捥摡獥漠⁦湩灳物摥琠慥档湩Ⱨ渠瑯漠敮瀠牥潳慨⁤敢湥ഠഊ琊慲獮潦浲摥㰮䘯乏㹔⼼䥄㹖਍਍䐼噉☾扮灳㰻䐯噉ാഊ㰊䥄㹖䘼乏⁔慦散䄽楲污猠穩㵥㸲⁉潤❮⁴敦汥礠畯栠癡⁥畱瑩⁥敲灳湯敤⁤潴洠⁹਍਍攧楸瑳湥楴污‧畱獥楴湯㰮䘯乏㹔⼼䥄㹖਍਍䐼噉☾扮灳㰻䐯噉ാഊ㰊䥄㹖䘼乏⁔慦散䄽楲污猠穩㵥㸲潊湨䈠∠桔牥⁥牡⁥楳灭祬琠潨獵湡獤漠⁦慰桴⁳湯ഠഊ漊晦牥※潨⁷潤䤠搠獩散湲琠潨敳琠慨⁴業桧⁴慳敶洠⁥牦浯琠潨敳琠慨⁴牡⁥敤敧敮慲整‿਍਍桔獩椠⁳楐獲杩猧焠敵瑳潩扡畯⁴楤捳楲業慮楴杮琠敨猠癡潩牵⁳牦浯琠敨搠来湥牥瑡獥ഠഊ瀊獯摥愠⁳湡攠楸瑳湥楴污挠潨捩⹥㰢䘯乏㹔⼼䥄㹖਍਍䐼噉☾扮灳㰻䐯噉ാഊ㰊䥄㹖䘼乏⁔慦散䄽楲污猠穩㵥㸲潙牵爠灥祬攠灭慨楳敳⁳楲歳湩⁧桴⁥敮ⱷ戠捥畡敳琠慨⁴਍਍獩眠敨敲琠敨搠湹浡捩椠⁳潴戠⁥潦湵⹤䨠楯楮杮琠敨䠠汯⁹潒汬牥⁳潷汵⁤敢渠睥‬湡⁤਍਍祤慮業⁣湩猠浯⁥慷獹‬畢⁴⁉畳灳捥⁴⁡敶祲氠睯焠慵楬祴漠瑵潣敭映牯洠⹥圠敨⁉਍਍慳⁹昢睥愠档敩敶攠捸汥敬据≥䤠挠牥慴湩祬愠捣灥⁴桴獩椠⁳汥瑩獩⹴䄠⁳楗扬牥猠祡ⱳഠഊ∊汁硥散汬湥散椠⁳汥瑩獩≴‮祍挠牯⁥畱獥楴湯椠⁳潨⁷潤䤠搠獩散湲愠瀠瑡ⱨ愠਍਍摥捵瑡潩慮牰捯獥ⱳ椠桷捩♨扮灳䤻洠獵⁴湩敶瑳洠捵⁨楴敭愠摮攠晦牯⁴湩漠摲牥ഠഊ琊獡散瑲楡桴⁥捡畴污焠慵楬祴琠敢搠獩潣敶敲⁤桴牥扥ⱹ椠摡慶据⁥景ഠഊ攊灸牥敩据湩⁧桴瑡焠慵楬祴㰿䘯乏㹔⼼䥄㹖਍਍䐼噉☾扮灳㰻䐯噉ാഊ㰊䥄㹖䘼乏⁔慦散䄽楲污猠穩㵥㸲祍渠睥攠獳祡椠⁳湯琠敨䘠牯浵‬湡⁤⁉畳灳捥⁴瑩洠祡ഠഊ栊癡♥扮灳瀻楯瑮⁳桴瑡愠敲爠汥癥湡⁴潴戠瑯⁨桴獩搠獩畣獳潩湡⁤潹牵洠獯⁴敲散瑮ഠഊ瀊獯⁴湯✠敒慬楴湯⁳敢睴敥敌敶獬⸧䰠瑥洠⁥湫睯眠慨⁴潹⁵桴湩⹫⼼但呎㰾䐯噉ാഊ㰊䥄㹖渦獢㭰⼼䥄㹖਍਍䐼噉㰾但呎映捡㵥牁慩楳敺㈽刾来牡獤⼼但呎㰾䐯噉ാഊ㰊䥄㹖渦獢㭰⼼䥄㹖਍਍䐼噉㰾但呎映捡㵥牁慩楳敺㈽䨾桯㱂䘯乏㹔⼼䥄㹖⼼佂奄㰾䠯䵔㹌਍਍

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[John Beasley]

ÿþ<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

<HTML><HEAD>

<META content="text/html; charset=unicode" http-equiv=Content-Type>

<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>

<STYLE></STYLE>

</HEAD>

<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wim and others,</FONT></DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have been tardy responding to your lengthy 

message of 30.6, Wim. You say&nbsp;"Somehow it doesn't feel right to distinguish 

between the communal and the individual decision. In religious language: it is 

God's decision and (depending on how you "point at" indefinable God, which 

Quakers do in diverse ways) neither communal nor individual <STRONG>or</STRONG> 

both communal and individual."</FONT></DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In Gestalt therapy there is a phrase "the situation 

dictates". This is used to indicate that a person is healthy when their response 

to a situation is guided not so much by their previous decisions and values, but 

by the immediacy of the situation itself. I suspect this could be extended to 

encompass group decisions where by attending fully to the situation the group 

will gradually allow the situation itself to dictate. Pirsig would say the 

quality in the situation would emerge; Christians would presumedly see God's 

will elucidated.</FONT></DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I actually don't think it works so simply. I am 

working on a further development of my thought at present in which the very 

nature of quality must differ according to my individual history and the 

developmental stages through which I have passed. Hence in any group the 

experience of quality will differ between individuals. The democratic solution 

is for the majority to decide what is quality. This inevitably results in 

reversion to the mean. I suspect that those who see a deeper quality cannot 

merely accede to a less enlightened majority. Yet their difficulty is that they 

cannot directly influence others perception of quality. This was Krishnamurti's 

dilemma. After decades of inspired teaching, not one person had been 

transformed.</FONT></DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I don't feel you have quite responded to my 

'existential' question.</FONT></DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>John B "There are simply thousands of paths on 

offer; how do I discern those that might save me from 

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear John,

Your conclusions (27/6 05:11 +1000) 
from what I sent you about Quakers (24/6 23:07 +0200) are correct I 
think.
I have some doubts about the 
final decision is communal rather than individual (contrary to 
Pirsig). The descriptions of what happens seem to justify this 
conclusion, yet it doesn't fit my experience. Somehow it doesn't feel right to 
distinguish between the communal and the individual decision. In religious 
language: it is God's decision and (depending on how you point at 
indefinable God, which Quakers do in diverse ways) neither communal nor 
individual or both communal and individual.
A couple of years ago I have been 
involved in argument about the nature of the decision that someone becomes a 
member of the Religious Society of Friends at a time that the guidelines (not 
rules!) of Netherlands Yearly Meeting were under revision. Before that they 
stated something to the effect that Monthly Meeting decides to 
recognise the decision by the candidate to become a member if it has 
the impression that he/she fits. I proposed to stress that the decision is a 
decision of the candidate only, that the traditional procedure of delegating two 
visiting Friends should be interpreted as a way of helping the candidate in 
his/her decision and that Monthly Meeting has no other choice than to recognise 
this decision when the visiting Friends report back that the candidate still 
wants to join. The guidelines were revised into: Member of the Religious 
Society of Friends in the Netherlands is he or she who speaks out for our faith 
community and who is admitted by minute of a Monthly Meeting leaving the 
question open whether these decisions are independent or not.

Discernment (of divine 
guidance ~ DQ) is a concept that is much thought about by Quakers. I could give 
you much more to read about it. It all seems to boil down however to: experience 
(both individual and communal), practice (take heed ... to the 
promptings of love and truth in your hearts ... Bring the whole of your life 
under the ordering of the spirit of Christ. ... Cherish that of God within you 
... Let your worship and your daily life enrich each other. Treasure your 
experience of God, however it comes to you.) and ... don't get stuck 
on statical quality (Remember that Christianity is not a notion but a 
way. ... Are you open to new light, from whatever source it may 
come?).

You write 
The test of this process to me would be an issue 
that divides the group almost equally, with no quick resolution possible. Has 
this happened?. Often enough. Decision is usually postponed. 
Meanwhile either some sort of compromise or the status quo comes/stays 
temporarily in effect. A case in point is slavery. This was put on the agenda of 
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting almost from the beginning of the presence of Quakers 
there ... year after year. Decision-making was postponed almost endlessly, 
because quite a few Quakers were themselves slave-owners. Activity between (yearly) gatherings of 
Yearly Meeting by individual Friends who were very outspoken against slavery to 
convince their fellow Quakers, in the end made it possible to unite on a common 
renouncement. And Quakers were still among the first to do so 
collectively...

Contrarians, those whose 
opinions are regularly at variance with those of the majority in 
the group, are just taken seriously, like everybody else. When they do not 
act according to a group decision (a sense of the meeting supposedly 
representing the will of God for the group) they are free to do so. Quakers do 
not (in my experience) disown their members (= unilaterally end 
their membership) anymore for any kind of transgression. They may be 
eldered (= spoken to by someone in the group whom they respect). 
Because of the conditioning to be open to new light, from whatever 
source it may come Quakers may actually listen better to 
someone stubbornly expressing opinions who are at variance with those of 
everybody else. The inner (possibly religious ~ DQ) experience motivating 
him/her to do so must surely be very strong to be so stubborn!

You write:
What I would 
like to explore more fully is how individuals discern quality, for example in 
ideas or politics or art. Wilber has recently said that 'everyone is right', or 
some such, and this I quite understand. I would translate this to mean that the 
quality that I can discern at a given point in time is limited by my development 
at that time. As I develop so what is quality to me will vary. The question I 
have is how do I choose from among an infinite set of possibilities those which 
will lead to the greatest potential for improved quality. If one takes Wilber's 
point to be that our experience of quality is an unfolding, how is it that so 
few achieve excellence? In a finite world, how do I know in advance of 
experience which paths lead to increased quality and which are dead ends? There 
are simply thousands of paths on offer; how do 

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Jonathan B. Marder]

Hi Sam, Platt and all,

SAM (Elizaphanian)
 It just seems to me that the universe taken as a
 whole is unique (by definition) and that therefore what we see is an
 assumption - more or less justifiable dependent upon other parts of your
 world view.

 To bring it back to MoQ questions; surely our physically observable and
 describable universe is only a part of all that there is, . . .

I maintain that all that there is in fact IS observable in principle, but
there are practical limits on how much and how well we observe. Thus, I accept
that there are UNKNOWN apsects of reality, but reject that there are
UNKNOWABLE parts of reality. IMO the very idea of an unknowable reality is an
oxymoron.

 in other words,
 the physical laws and so on are valid and complete, but only in so far as
 they apply to the first level, inorganic patterns of value. If we are taking
 the universe as a whole, which is unique and contains not only all the
 different levels of value but also that from which those patterns are
 generated (quality) - why should the laws taken from a proper description of
 the first level apply to the whole?

Here I disagree. I know that most physical laws are framed in reference to
inorganic patterns of value. Framed in these terms, they apply only
indirectly to patterns of other levels BUT THEY STILL APPLY. We must remember
too though that physical laws are also framed in mathematical terms. Claude
Shannon took the equations of thermodynamics and showed that they could apply
equally well to communication signals and codes. Similarly, there is a lot in
common between linguistic analysis and analysis of DNA sequences.



 That's part one of my response to Jonathan. Part two: Jonathan wrote -

  There are two commonly held views of
  God.
  1. God as a power working WITHIN the physical Universe (i.e. NATURAL).
  2. God as a power working from outside the physical Universe (i.e.
  supernatural).

 Firstly, I think it would be fair to say that there are rather more commonly
 held views of God than these two, not least because orthodox Christianity
 would claim that both are true (in traditional terms, God is both immanent -
 within the universe - and transcendent - beyond the universe). So posing
 these as binary alternatives is not quite right.


Sam, this is a contradiction - you can't have it both ways. If you restrict
the definition of the Universe to EXLUDE emergent properties, then new
patterns (like God) may fall outside.
This is indeed the relationship between the world of science and orthodox
Christianity. I've not read any Spinoza directly, but suspect that his
excommunication by the Jewish community relects the same science vs.
religion attitude.

 Secondly, we need to be careful when combining the languages of
 natural/supernatural with language about God/religion (or indeed the MoQ!).
 The contemporary distinction between natural and supernatural means
 (roughly) a distinction between that which can be accounted for by the laws
 of science and that which cannot, and derives largely from the scientific
 revolution. That revolution itself was built upon the rejection of the
 Christian world view that preceded it - and, I would argue, is also
 incompatible with the MoQ.

This is the same rift. As a scientist, I believe that the problem was the
Church's failure to embrace the scientific world view. e.g. refusing to accept
the reality of what Copernicus and Galileo were saying. As the dominant social
force of its day, the Church has a lot to answer for. The animosity and
divisions that resulted are still a festering wound in our culture.

I think that the wound can be healed in a wholesome and scientific way by
considering the Universe to be INCLUSIVE of all its emergent properties. Such
a unified view is a much better backdrop to Pirsig's attempts to unify art,
science and religion. In this context, the transcendence mentioned by Sam is
not an escape from the confines of the Universe, but the emergence of new
patterns within the Universe, but at a higher level of complexity.

 In other words, for orthodox Christianity there
 is NO room for something supernatural in the modern sense - but that leads
 us into another very large area of debate. It may be better to look at it in
 MoQ terms - is a dynamic breakthrough into a higher level something that
 counts as supernatural? I would say not, but it is not something which can
 be fully described or explained in terms of the lower levels.

If this is true, then Christianity and Science are on a path of convergence.

PLATT
So it seems you are up against two widely held scientific assumptions-
-a reality independent of human observation and a mechanistic cause
of all phenomena. I hope your next essay will tackle these
assumptions head on even if your fellow scientists will be tempted to
drum you out of the corps along with Glenn and a few other dedicated
science types in the LS. (-:

I don't think there is any real problem Platt, simplicistic science 

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Elizaphanian]

A quick response to Jonathan:

 So when SAM says:
  I have a *lot* of sympathy with this.

 I'm not surprised, but would be delighted if he agrees also out of a
 religious perspective.
 What do you say Sam?


I say that I DO agree from a staunchly religious perspective, but to spell
out exactly why will take quite a long time. I think perhaps I should go
away and write it up as a paper (which would then respond to your other
points, especially the division between nature and supernature).

Cheers
Sam



MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Platt Holden]

Hi Jonathan:

JONATHAN:

 I don't think there is any real problem Platt, simplicistic science is for
 technicians and the layman. Whether they like to philosophise or not, I'm sure
 that most would welcome my closing statement from my previous post as a
 mantra.
 
   The Universe is true to its nature. This is the celestial order of all
   things.
 
 
 If you don't believe that, there is no point in doing science!

Would you be so good as to elaborate. For example, The Universe is 
true to its nature is a tautology--the Universe is true to the Universe. 
What am I missing?

Also, doesn't celestial refer to the spiritual or divine? You won't get a 
lot of agreement on your assertion from hard-nosed scientists, 
especially the idea that you must believe in something divine to do 
science.

Finally, the order in the Universe is a man-made conception as you've 
rightly pointed out before. Yet most scientists take it for granted that an 
order exists in the universe--independent of our conceptions--that 
mathematics and measurement can uncover.

So I question whether most scientists would welcome your 
statement. It would be interesting to test it with a poll. Or, have I 
misread your statement and that what you meant was laymen and 
technicians would welcome your statement? 

Platt
  










MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Jonathan B. Marder]

Hi Platt and all,

The Universe is true to its nature. This is the celestial order of all
things.
  
 
  If you don't believe that, there is no point in doing science!


PLATT
 Would you be so good as to elaborate. For example, The Universe is
 true to its nature is a tautology--the Universe is true to the Universe.
 What am I missing?

It is indeed a tautology, or to put it another way a TRUISM.
It's like saying two parallel lines never meet.

I LIKE tautologies.


 Also, doesn't celestial refer to the spiritual or divine? You won't get a
 lot of agreement on your assertion from hard-nosed scientists,
 especially the idea that you must believe in something divine to do
 science.

It's not necessarily a reference to the spiritual. Astronomers see quite happy
with the term Celestial bodies. If the word causes problems, I am happy to
drop it.

 Finally, the order in the Universe is a man-made conception as you've
 rightly pointed out before. Yet most scientists take it for granted that an
 order exists in the universe--independent of our conceptions--that
 mathematics and measurement can uncover.


It is a man-made assumption that has proved invaluable. Without that
assumption, nothing has meaning and nothing has value - quality disintegrates
(therefore reality disintegrates !!!??).
To ask where the order comes from, whether it is subjective or objective, is
to miss the point of the MoQ.

 So I question whether most scientists would welcome your
 statement. It would be interesting to test it with a poll. Or, have I
 misread your statement and that what you meant was laymen and
 technicians would welcome your statement?


I suppose that everyone can check that for themselves and report back.

Jonathan

PS. to Platt . . .

hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to create water because it is in their
NATURE to do so.



MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Elizaphanian]

Hi all,

Jonathan wrote:

 The universe is complete (UNI) * BY DEFINITION *. i.e. it IS an axiom. As
soon as
 the universe starts to look incomplete, then what we are looking at is
 something less than the whole universe.

Sam's question: this is indeed what I was groping towards, but I think there
is one more thing to emerge, which I might be able to dig out by asking a
further question - why does everything count as a closed system in the way
that a completely-describable-system-that-is-subject-to-the-second-law
counts as a closed system? It just seems to me that the universe taken as a
whole is unique (by definition) and that therefore what we see is an
assumption - more or less justifiable dependent upon other parts of your
world view.

To bring it back to MoQ questions; surely our physically observable and
describable universe is only a part of all that there is, in other words,
the physical laws and so on are valid and complete, but only in so far as
they apply to the first level, inorganic patterns of value. If we are taking
the universe as a whole, which is unique and contains not only all the
different levels of value but also that from which those patterns are
generated (quality) - why should the laws taken from a proper description of
the first level apply to the whole?

That's part one of my response to Jonathan. Part two: Jonathan wrote -

 I can go on repeating this till I am blue in the face, but the context of
this
 discussion (Religion/God) is interesting. There are two commonly held
views of
 God.
 1. God as a power working WITHIN the physical Universe (i.e. NATURAL).
 2. God as a power working from outside the physical Universe (i.e.
 supernatural).

Firstly, I think it would be fair to say that there are rather more commonly
held views of God than these two, not least because orthodox Christianity
would claim that both are true (in traditional terms, God is both immanent -
within the universe - and transcendent - beyond the universe). So posing
these as binary alternatives is not quite right.

Secondly, we need to be careful when combining the languages of
natural/supernatural with language about God/religion (or indeed the MoQ!).
The contemporary distinction between natural and supernatural means
(roughly) a distinction between that which can be accounted for by the laws
of science and that which cannot, and derives largely from the scientific
revolution. That revolution itself was built upon the rejection of the
Christian world view that preceded it - and, I would argue, is also
incompatible with the MoQ. In other words, for orthodox Christianity there
is NO room for something supernatural in the modern sense - but that leads
us into another very large area of debate. It may be better to look at it in
MoQ terms - is a dynamic breakthrough into a higher level something that
counts as supernatural? I would say not, but it is not something which can
be fully described or explained in terms of the lower levels.

Jonathan wrote:

 The Universe is true to its nature. This is the celestial order of all
things.

I have a *lot* of sympathy with this. Again, to put things in MoQ terms, I
would say that the ability to tune in to DQ and allow for DQ experiences,
including the static latching thereof, rests to quite a large extent on
acknowledging our own natures and allowing them to flourish. As such, I
would count myself on the libertarian side of the fence, in my basic
assumptions about how to move forward.

Cheers,
Sam





MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear 
Rasheed,

You wrote 26/6 15:33 
-0400:
Pirsig ... sees DQ as the 
source of all new things, like an inventor, and sQ as its secretary which simply 
takes note of what has happened so that he doesn't forget.
...
P.S. That was a pretty horrible 
analogy

I don't agree with your P.S.. I like 
the analogy. A new metaphor pointing to the moon.

With friendly greetings,

Wim 
Nusselder

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Andi Norby]

Rasheed,
I would disagree with your statement that looking for a way to 'permanently 
experience DQ' contradicts the idea of DQ.  Perhaps I'm wrong here, I'm 
just working this idea, but instinctively I would say that although living 
entirely on the edge of DQ would be completely fruitless, the idea of DQ 
would remain intact.  I interpreted the example you used, about the song 
that becomes less and less pleasing as time goes on, as being about the idea 
of static quality setting into an experience that was intitially Dynamic 
(perhaps a bit of Pirsig's bias towards DQ...?)  Maybe not, this isn't one 
of those things I'm certain about.  I must be going, my cat is becoming 
exteremely jealous of the keyboard and it's impossible to type.

andi
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Elizaphanian]

Jonathan wrote:

 Marco, in energetic terms, closed means that their is no input our
output of
 energy. There is no reason the system can't go on expanding in space.


What I would like to find out is *why* it is considered that there is no
input of energy; or, to be more precise, why such a possibility is
precluded. My suspicion is that this is a basic axiom of the physical
understanding of the cosmos (and completely reasonable in those terms) but
not necessarily one that is possible to be argued for (what would count as
evidence for it?). Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Sam



MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[marco]

Hi Jonathan, 

many thanks for your adjustments on my post. Hope you forgive my naiveness.

 You are touching on something that I haven't yet addressed 
 in a previous post, and now force me to reveal a key 
 physical point in my proposed essay: Entropy HAS no upper 
 limit - it just goes on increasing. The doomsday picture
 of absolute disorder is a situation that cannot be reached.

oopsss... hope I've not disclosed any secret! :-) 

 Marco, in energetic terms, closed means
 that their is no input our output of energy. 
 There is no reason the system can't go on 
 expanding in space.

Ah, Ok. [And thanks also for the rectification about the decreasing entropy, which is, 
obviously, increasing]

Actually, I have in my mind the gas expansion, that is a classical picture used to 
explain entropy. That's why, maybe, I'm so fixed about volume.  

The particularity of universe is that the system is not expanding IN space. It's 
expanding space itself! The NEW space is necessarily empty, thus, we have new order. 
Immediately, mass and energy will fill it, creating new disorder.  In few words, all 
we have to do is  simply invent a machine to convert the expansion of universe into 
heat  :-) 

Waiting for your (more serious than my message) essay

bye, Marco
(ancient Isaac Asimov fan)




MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

RE: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Stephen Devlin]

even if entropy has no upper limit, isn't there a point where it will have
increased sufficiently to have extinguished life, admittedly the universe
will continue on but thats small comfort to a one sun solar system if life
as we know it dies out.Dynamic Quality is evolution and the threat of such
an occurence motivates/forces breakthrough's in technology necessary to
escape the catastrophic environment, thus on some level I view entropy as an
anti-force to DQ.
Eagerly await your essay.
stephen

-Original Message-
From: marco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 26 June 2001 12:38
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ


Hi Jonathan, 

many thanks for your adjustments on my post. Hope you forgive my naiveness.

 You are touching on something that I haven't yet addressed 
 in a previous post, and now force me to reveal a key 
 physical point in my proposed essay: Entropy HAS no upper 
 limit - it just goes on increasing. The doomsday picture
 of absolute disorder is a situation that cannot be reached.

oopsss... hope I've not disclosed any secret! :-) 

 Marco, in energetic terms, closed means
 that their is no input our output of energy. 
 There is no reason the system can't go on 
 expanding in space.

Ah, Ok. [And thanks also for the rectification about the decreasing entropy,
which is, obviously, increasing]

Actually, I have in my mind the gas expansion, that is a classical picture
used to explain entropy. That's why, maybe, I'm so fixed about volume.  

The particularity of universe is that the system is not expanding IN space.
It's expanding space itself! The NEW space is necessarily empty, thus, we
have new order. Immediately, mass and energy will fill it, creating new
disorder.  In few words, all we have to do is  simply invent a machine to
convert the expansion of universe into heat  :-) 

Waiting for your (more serious than my message) essay

bye, Marco
(ancient Isaac Asimov fan)




MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html


_
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet 
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.

_
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet 
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.


MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Jonathan B. Marder]

Hi Sam and all,

What I love about this forum is that everything gets questioned, and I find
myself repeatedly called upon to reconsider and clarify my position, often
with unexpected rewards.



 Jonathan wrote:

  Marco, in energetic terms, closed means that their is no input our
 output of
  energy. There is no reason the system can't go on expanding in space.
 


What I left out of my previous post was a dictionary definition of Universe.
Here's what Webster's on-line says:

UNIVERSE
Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni-
+ versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn -- more at
WORTH
Date: 1589
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : COSMOS: as
a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct
intervention of divine power b : the world of human experience c (1) : the
entire celestial cosmos (2) : MILKY WAY GALAXY (3) : an aggregate of stars
comparable to the Milky Way galaxy
2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed
system or self-inclusive and independent organization
3 : POPULATION 4
4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or
problem
5 : a great number or quantity a large enough universe of stocks... to choose
from -- G. B. Clairmont

SAM
 What I would like to find out is *why* it is considered that there is no
 input of energy; or, to be more precise, why such a possibility is
 precluded. My suspicion is that this is a basic axiom of the physical
 understanding of the cosmos (and completely reasonable in those terms) but
 not necessarily one that is possible to be argued for (what would count as
 evidence for it?). Or am I barking up the wrong tree?


The reason I gave the above dictionary definitions is that Sam is right: The
universe is complete (UNI) * BY DEFINITION *. i.e. it IS an axiom. As soon as
the universe starts to look incomplete, then what we are looking at is
something less than the whole universe.

I can go on repeating this till I am blue in the face, but the context of this
discussion (Religion/God) is interesting. There are two commonly held views of
God.
1. God as a power working WITHIN the physical Universe (i.e. NATURAL).
2. God as a power working from outside the physical Universe (i.e.
supernatural).

Any rigorous scientific view goes best with the first definition. The second
raises all sorts of contradictions.

As I said at the start, there are often rewards that come out of these
discussions. My own reward came in looking at the terms natural and
supernatural and realising that the word NATURE is another word for QUALITY.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is an expression of the NATURE of the Universe.
All things and patterns behave according to nature.

We can use all these words interchangeably:
NATURE = QUALITY = GOOD = GOD = RTA = KARMA = TAO

It all seems to fit:

The Universe is true to its nature. This is the celestial order of all things.

Jonathan




MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Platt Holden]

Hi Jonathan, Elephant, Roger, Glenn and All:

Jonathan, I reread your essay *The End of Causality* in searching for 
an answer to my question how novel qualities arise from the 
rearrangement of elements that in themselves lack these qualities. In 
doing so I was reminded that your answer is that the cause of change 
is sometimes an *inherent tendency* suggesting a *quest or 
aspiration.* In other words, hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to 
create water because they want to--it is their cause, not in the sense of 
a mechanical process, but in the sense of a goal, purpose, quest, or 
aspiration.

As you know, I wholeheartedly agree with your view as I believe it 
accurately reflects the MOQ. We also agree, much to the consternation 
of Elephant and Roger, that atoms are aware, i.e., are sensitive and 
responsive. 

Now since you are a scientist you know better than most what you are 
up against in trying to convince your peers that your view of causality is 
correct. Not only that, but I noticed in reviewing some of your posts 
during the great *Are Atoms Aware* debate that you believe reality 
depends on our perceptions.

JONATHAN:
I agree that atoms are an invention of the human mind, but maintain 
that this and other similar inventions ARE reality. We conceive from 
what we perceive and we perceive what we conceive. In this act of 
perception/conception, we REALIZE our reality. The mystical approach 
is to suspect everyday reality as a false god, or as trickery (MAYA). The 
alternative approach (that I prefer) is to embrace everyday reality as our 
own child.

This I am also in full agreement with. What we call reality or existence 
is what we experience. Reality always occurs within awareness. That 
there exists a reality independent of awareness is an untestable 
assumption. (I go a bit further and claim that awareness contains a 
built-in sense of value, but that’s another story.)

So it seems you are up against two widely held scientific assumptions-
-a reality independent of human observation and a mechanistic cause 
of all phenomena. I hope your next essay will tackle these 
assumptions head on even if your fellow scientists will be tempted to 
drum you out of the corps along with Glenn and a few other dedicated 
science types in the LS. (-:

Platt




MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[John Beasley]

ÿþ<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

<HTML><HEAD>

<META content="text/html; charset=unicode" http-equiv=Content-Type>

<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>

<STYLE></STYLE>

</HEAD>

<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hullo Wim,</FONT></DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks for the material on Quakers. What came 

through very clearly to me was the strong desire to leave the field free for the 

dynamic to emerge, and the recognition that both the experience and the language 

in which it is described will change from generation to generation. This is, of 

course, another problem with writing metaphysics, in that the language itself 

becomes a static trap over time.</FONT></DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I had hoped that there would have been more detail 

on how the dynamic is discerned. What did emerge was</FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the final decision is communal 

rather than individual (contrary to Pirsig)</FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; there is a commitment from the 

group to stay with the process until a decision is reached</FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; there is a willingness of 

individuals to offer their input and allow it to be used or discarded in the 

process</FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; while a simple majority does 

not assure a decision, unanimity is also not required.</FONT></DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The test of this process to me would be an issue 

that divides the group almost equally, with no quick resolution possible. Has 

this happened?</FONT></DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>How does this process deal with contrarians, whose 

decisions are regularly at variance with the group? (Lila was supposed to be a 

contrarian.)</FONT></DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[Interestingly, I was talking on the phone with my 

brother last night, who belongs to an organisation called Sea of Faith, a sort 

of religious afterglow which retains faith in faith itself, and very little 

else. It is a growing organisation in the UK, NZ and Australia, and is currently 

looking at a way to develop a national structure that does not become an 

orthodoxy or dogma itself. I read him some of your quotes and he is very 

interested. I have 

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[HisSheedness]

Andi, 

The music example is in chapter 9 of Lila, p 134-5.  It's a good thing i mark 
my book with rubber bands and arby's mints.  as for what you said, i think i 
may have been a little unclear with my assertion.  First of all, i do believe 
that the idea of DQ is always there, waiting to be experienced (maybe not 
'waiting,' but another verb in its place that i cant think of because 2:23 pm 
is too early for me during the summer).  What i was saying is that one cannot 
constantly experience DQ and have Dynamic experiences.  Those experiences 
soon ossify into sQ.  then there are periods of sQ where nothing really 
happens until DQ hits again.  And i think Pirsig is biased towards DQ, which 
i think make sense, because imo he sees DQ as the source of all new things, 
like an inventor, and sQ as its secretary which simply takes note of what has 
happened so that he doesnt forget.  

rasheed

PS.  That was a pretty horrible analogy there at the end, i think my cat must 
have jumped on the keyboard and typed it.  oh wait i dont have a cat, never 
mind.


MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[John Beasley]

Stephen and others discussing 'the void'.

If you are interested in following this topic further, you might try to
obtain The Void by A. H. Almaas (the pen name for Hameed Ali). This is a
rather challenging book if you are not used to a mystic point of view, but
its interest to Pirsig fans is that is is thoroughly grounded in experience.

Regards,

John B



MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear 
Stephen,

You wrote 20/6 13:26 +0100 in the 
Back on topic-thread:
In relation to Wim's post I 
would put it as dynamic quality is a void that can be re-experienced time and 
again. As human beings we change at different rates and absorb new static 
patterns at different rates and different static patterns we have 'taken on' (to 
the previous time) make us think we are seeing something new where infact the 
dynamic q is the same indefinable its allways been.

I think you referred to my 20/6 11:29 
+0200 post in the Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ-thread, so I 
answer in that thread.

I hesitate to describe DQ 
as a void. A void, the absence of or freedom from all static patterns of value, 
may be a prerequisite to (very temporarily) experience DQ but I don't see the 
Quality, the Good, in a void in itself. Can a void be the ultimate Good (that 
ever eludes us) towards all static patterns are migrating? It could just as well 
be the ultimate Evil which they are migrating from. It needs more than a void to 
explain the change for the better DQ creates. Just breaking up, denying, freeing 
your'self' from static patterns of value does not account for (re)creation of 
better static patterns of value.

With friendly 
greetings,

Wim 
Nusselder

RE: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Stephen Devlin]

.my earlier post might (big might) make more/some sense if i quote the
uberdood himself
 
.When A.N.Whitehead wrote that 'nankind is driven forward by dim
apprehensions of things too obscure for its existing language' he was
writing about Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual
cutting edge of reality, the source of all things, completely simple and
always new. it was the moral force that had motivated the brujo in Zuni. It
contains no pattern of fixed rewards and punishments. Its only perceived
good is freedom and its only perceived evil is static quality itself - any
pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing
free force of life.(Lila,page 140 Black Swan paperback)
 
 
 the quality, the good isn't in the void, it is the dialogue between a
person and the experienced, one's perceptions of the experience may lead to
that sensed as having dynamic quality or indeed some other attribute, please
help me out here and tell me how we can permanently experience dynamic
quality. Incidentally, doesn't the second law of thermodynamics strongly
suggest that static patterns are not all migrating to an ultimate good? I'm
no stephen hawkings but if the 2nd law is true then isn't that  therefore
the state to which all static patterns are migrating, so a dead universe is
the ultimate good? i think DQ is quite the reverse and a step against the
physical system we have understood so far, i think, ish,kind of,  hmm. 
 
 
 

-Original Message-
From: Wim Nusselder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 June 2001 10:20
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ


Dear Stephen,
 
You wrote 20/6 13:26 +0100 in the Back on topic-thread:
In relation to Wim's post I would put it as dynamic quality is a void that
can be re-experienced time and again. As human beings we change at different
rates and absorb new static patterns at different rates and different static
patterns we have 'taken on' (to the previous time) make us think we are
seeing something new where infact the dynamic q is the same indefinable its
allways been.
 
I think you referred to my 20/6 11:29 +0200 post in the Religion/God ~
MoQ/DQ-thread, so I answer in that thread.
 
I hesitate to describe DQ as a void. A void, the absence of or freedom from
all static patterns of value, may be a prerequisite to (very temporarily)
experience DQ but I don't see the Quality, the Good, in a void in itself.
Can a void be the ultimate Good (that ever eludes us) towards all static
patterns are migrating? It could just as well be the ultimate Evil which
they are migrating from. It needs more than a void to explain the change for
the better DQ creates. Just breaking up, denying, freeing your'self' from
static patterns of value does not account for (re)creation of better static
patterns of value.
 
With friendly greetings,
 
Wim Nusselder

_
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet 
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.



_
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet 
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.


MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Jonathan B. Marder]

Hi Stephen and all,

 . . .Incidentally, doesn't the second law of thermodynamics strongly
 suggest that static patterns are not all migrating to an ultimate good? I'm
 no stephen hawkings but if the 2nd law is true then isn't that  therefore
 the state to which all static patterns are migrating, so a dead universe is
 the ultimate good? i think DQ is quite the reverse and a step against the
 physical system we have understood so far, i think, ish,kind of,  hmm.


As main exponent of the 2nd law in this forum, I reject your assertion and
think that it reflects a lack of understanding of the law.
The law states the direction in which closed systems (including the universe
as a whole) tend to change over time. It does not tell us if that change will
necessarily be realised at any observable rate.

There are NO EXCEPTIONS to the second law. Any system that appears to violate
the law is not a closed system. When it is re-examined TOGETHER with all
relevant outside factors (i.e. as a new enlarged closed system) the direction
of change will accord to the second law.


Life is not a violation of the second law. It must be examined together with
all the inputs and outputs. If you think that life creates order, I suggest a
visit to your local garbage dump!!!

The higher order patterns that allow an organism to live come at the expense
of DISordering in the lower order patterns in the food it eats. TAKEN TOGETHER
IT IS AN OVERALL DISORDERING (in thermodynamic terms, the entropy increases).
This entropy increase isn't a migration towards death, but towards life.

Some time, I intend to write a new essay for the forum. Far too often the 2nd
law is interpreted pessimistically as a prediction of the death of the
universe. The purpose of my essay will be to present exactly the opposite
view!!!

Jonathan
(the optimist)



MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Elizaphanian]

 As main exponent of the 2nd law in this forum, I reject your assertion and
 think that it reflects a lack of understanding of the law.
 The law states the direction in which closed systems (including the
universe
 as a whole) tend to change over time. It does not tell us if that change
will
 necessarily be realised at any observable rate.



A query from a lurker: why is the universe as a whole considered a closed
system? How do we know whether it is or isn't, or does it follow
automatically from some other (perfectly sensible) prior assumption?

Just curious.

Sam



MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[HisSheedness]

Stephen,

Looking for a way to 'permanently experience DQ' contradicts the idea of DQ.  
DQ is something that hits in a moment, when a person perceives Quality that 
is inextricably connected with the moment in which she perceives it.  I like 
Pirsig's music example, which basically said that if you hear a song in a 
certain condition, you find some strange beauty in it.  But when you buy the 
CD, it's good, but not as good as it was when you first heard it in those 
certain circumstances.  So, it has DQ, because of the experience, but also 
sQ, because you still think it's good.  That was a pretty bad recapitulation, 
but i think it gives you some idea of what he was saying.  As for this talk 
of where Quality is and whether or not it is in a void, maybe we need to go 
way back to Pirsig's explanation in ZAMM- the event in which one realizes a 
thing's inherent goodness.  Quality is in the pre-intellectual perception of 
thing.

rasheed


MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Jonathan B. Marder]

Hi Sam,

 A query from a lurker: why is the universe as a whole considered a closed
 system? How do we know whether it is or isn't, or does it follow
 automatically from some other (perfectly sensible) prior assumption?

 Just curious.


Good question!!! The classical view is that there is one and only one
Universe. If that's all there is, then you can't have anything outside it - so
it is closed (complete).

I know that some cosmologists now talk about multiple universes, but I don't
understand all the theory behind it. I assume that when they talk about 2 or
more universes, those universes can't overlap in any of the 4 dimensions -
otherwise they wouldn't be separate universes . . . . And if they can't
overlap, they can't interact energetically, so then each would be
thermodynamically a closed system unto itself.

Is there anyone out there who can explain the many universes idea?

Jonathan



MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Platt Holden]

Hi Jonathan:

I hope in your new essay for the forum you will explain how novel 
qualities arise from the rearrangement of elements that in themselves 
lack these qualities. To simply say they emerge is a description, not 
an explanation. 

I eargerly look forward to your essay, not only for its explanation of novel 
emerging qualities but for the connection of  the 2nd law to the MOQ. 
Will it be posted soon?

Platt
 


MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

RE: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Stephen Devlin]

Looking for a way to 'permanently experience DQ'was a challenge where i
don't think there's a successful outcome so we agree there.
Quality is in the pre-intellectual perception of 
thing.I would call the void an area that is pre-perception and above the
intellectual, when i did martial arts there was a concept called the godai,
a mystical elemental hierarchy
ku-void
fu-wind
ka-fire
sui-water
chi-earth
 that was a system some old japanese fist flingers believed in(I think it
still hangs around and is taught in japanese schools to young children
today). Over he years i heard many westerners (with no philosophical
training like myself) try to grasp the essence or meaning of this void to
little avail. there were a set of technique's that illustrated the feeling
behind each level.the technique for the void consisted of two movements
1.evading the attackers punch or kick-simultaneously throwing your arm up as
a distraction
2.counterattacking with a punch etc yourself.
my friends and training partners laboured under the impression that the arm
was thrown up to 2catch the attacker's eye but this was not the case.Later
guidlines for meditation work showed its purpose was to take the mind
away,hard to get across to kids in a leisure centre.the technique for the
4th level (wind) was supposed to be the intellectual level where you used
compassion to temper your technique so as not to harm your opponent but to
prevent him/her harming either of you (picture a drunken relative trying to
goad a confrontation).In this godai system the void was taken to be above
intellect as it comprised all possibilities and potential for
everything,including intellect.IMV perception of quality has already
narrowed that void.At the same time the term dynamic quality as the
pre-intellectual cutting edge I could happily take interchangably with the
void as i see it.Whichever terms we're happy with, they're just terms,i
think Lila's Dynamic Quality far more expressive of this flux of
possibilities than the term quality taken alone.

stephen





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 June 2001 16:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ


Stephen,

Looking for a way to 'permanently experience DQ' contradicts the idea of DQ.

DQ is something that hits in a moment, when a person perceives Quality that 
is inextricably connected with the moment in which she perceives it.  I like

Pirsig's music example, which basically said that if you hear a song in a 
certain condition, you find some strange beauty in it.  But when you buy the

CD, it's good, but not as good as it was when you first heard it in those 
certain circumstances.  So, it has DQ, because of the experience, but also 
sQ, because you still think it's good.  That was a pretty bad
recapitulation, 
but i think it gives you some idea of what he was saying.  As for this talk 
of where Quality is and whether or not it is in a void, maybe we need to go 
way back to Pirsig's explanation in ZAMM- the event in which one realizes a 
thing's inherent goodness.  Quality is in the pre-intellectual perception of

thing.

rasheed


MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html


_
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet 
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.

_
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet 
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.


MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear 
Stephen,

You wrote 25/6 13:14 +0100 the quality, the good isn't in the 
void.
So we agree again. The rest of your 
post doesn't seem to me to pinpoint DQ down, so it stays comfortably 
undefined.

With friendly greetings,

Wim 
Nusselder

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Marco]

Hi Jonathan,

I also have problems to accept universe as a closed system. And not because of
the possibility of multiple universes. Let me try a simple consideration.

I've heard that the system is expanding, so IMO it is not closed.  Let's admit
that the total amount of energy is constant: if the system will go on expanding
forever, the density of universe will always go on decreasing.

In this situation, the limit of entropy should decrease, also... or not?   I
mean: the expansion of universe will continuously insert in the universe a new
portion of universe that is less warm than the *old* universe.

That is, entropy can't be reached.


It seems too easy. Tell me where I'm wrong. :-)


Marco






MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Jonathan B. Marder]

Hi Platt, Marco and all,

PLATT
 I hope in your new essay for the forum you will explain how novel
 qualities arise from the rearrangement of elements that in themselves
 lack these qualities. To simply say they emerge is a description, not
 an explanation.

I'm not sure there is a rigorous difference between description and
explanation. You imply that you are looking for CAUSE for novel qualities. I
already addressed this in my The End of Causality essay.


 I eargerly look forward to your essay, not only for its explanation of novel
 emerging qualities but for the connection of  the 2nd law to the MOQ.
 Will it be posted soon?

I was under the impression that I'd already started in that direction with the
causality essay. I admit that I didn't explicitly link it to the MoQ, but any
serious MoQer should be able to see plenty of hints. As for the new essay,
it's on my to do list. The ideas are all in my head, and many of them have
appeared in my numerous posts in the two MoQ discussion lists. What I still
need is some real FREE time to get it into essay form (not easy with a young
family and a full-time job).


MARCO writes:
 I also have problems to accept universe as a closed system. And not because
of
 the possibility of multiple universes. Let me try a simple consideration.

 I've heard that the system is expanding, so IMO it is not closed.  Let's
admit
 that the total amount of energy is constant: if the system will go on
expanding
 forever, the density of universe will always go on decreasing.

Marco, in energetic terms, closed means that their is no input our output of
energy. There is no reason the system can't go on expanding in space.


 In this situation, the limit of entropy should decrease, also... or not?   I
 mean: the expansion of universe will continuously insert in the universe a
new
 portion of universe that is less warm than the *old* universe.

 That is, entropy can't be reached.


 It seems too easy. Tell me where I'm wrong. :-)

You're only a little bit wrong. That is where you talk about a limit.
You are touching on something that I haven't yet addressed in a previous post,
and now force me to reveal a key physical point in my proposed essay:
Entropy HAS no upper limit - it just goes on increasing. The doomsday picture
of absolute disorder is a situation that cannot be reached.

In a sense, that's the whole essay right there.


Jonathan



MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear John,

I promised to tell you 
more about Quakers.
I hope it won't look too 
much like a commercial. I value Quaker social and intellectual patterns higher 
than those of other religions I have experienced or read about, mainly because 
they leave more room for Dynamic Quality, for change for the better. I won't be 
able to hide that.

The Religious Society of 
Friends, as Quakers officially call themselves, was founded by George Fox, a 
lower middle class religious seeker in 17th century England. Having 
questioned every brand of clergyman and priest he could find (quite a lot 
in the political and social turmoil of Cromwell's times) with disappointing 
results, he heard a voice which said: There is one, even Christ Jesus, 
that can speak to thy condition. In his Journal (an autobiography he 
dictated near the end of his life) he ads: And this I knew 
experimentally. That started a life of travelling and preaching the Truth (as 
he called it) of direct availability of divine guidance for 
everyone.
This idea, when carried 
by tens of thousands of Quakers -as it soon came to be-, is of course 
potentially a very potent disruptor of all kinds of statical patterns of value. 
Soon the jails were crowded by Quakers who refused to take oaths in court , who 
did not take their hats off and did not say you instead of 
thee to social superiors, who disrupted church 
(steeplehouse) services by hireling ministers etc. The 
organisational effort (started by Margaret Fell, the later Margaret Fox...) 
needed to support all those prisoners and their families and generally to keep 
together a persecuted group of people resulted in what is still the backbone of 
the organisation: autonomous Monthly Meetings (local groups meeting 
monthly to decide on common business) and a national Meeting for 
Sufferings representing them in London, trying to lobby government for 
more religious freedom and better prison conditions.

Early Quakers were 
clearly Christian. George Fox was said to be able to rewrite the Bible from 
memory had it gone lost. They emphasised not to take it literally however, but 
to listen to the Spirit that inspired the Bible writers and then to recognise 
that it is indeed the same Spirit. In the words of George Fox reported by 
Margaret Fell: The Scriptures were the prophets' words and Christ's 
and the apostles' words, and what as they spoke they enjoyed and possessed and 
had it from the Lord. ... Then what had any to do with the Scriptures, but as 
they came to the Spirit that gave them forth. You will say, Christ saith this, 
and the apostles say this; what canst thou say? Art thou a child of the Light 
and hast walked in the Light, and what thou speakest is it inwardly from 
God?

Quakers developed into a 
kind of extreme puritans rooted in mystical experience with minimal religious 
forms and a strong social conscience. No ordained clergy (priesthood of all 
believers), no liturgy in meetings for worship (everyone present feeling 
inspired to speak can do so), non-observance of holy days (one should remember 
birth, death and resurrection of Christ and -last but not least- the descent of 
the Holy Spirit every day of the year), no external sacraments (the whole of 
life is sacramental), no profession of faith required of members (no dogma's to 
compose a creed anyway).

So much freedom to follow 
your own inspiration needs some static latches of course. Some things some 
Quakers felt called to do, like going naked in public to demonstrate some social 
injustice or proclaiming oneself to be a reincarnated Christ were not felt to be 
changes for the better of existing statical patterns of value even by fellow 
Quakers (apart from threatening gradually gained social 
respectability).
The main static latches as I experience 
them are
1. committing to paper accumulated 
religious experience of Quakers by Yearly Meetings (groups of Monthly Meetings 
in a larger geographical area) and
2. testing of concerns 
(understood as a special inward calling to carry out a particular service) in 
Monthly Meeting or in a special meeting for clearness.

1. Dutch Quakers often refer to 
Quaker faith  practice, the book of Christian discipline of the 
Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Britain 
and (being few) only produce a reduced version of such a document ourselves. It 
contains both quotations from all kinds of Quaker writings (books, minutes of 
business meetings, journals) and specially (re)written texts giving guidance for 
the functioning of the organisation.
From the introduction: There 
is no yardstick by which the experience of one generation can be judged against 
that of another, but we do know that whatever the circumstances, we are called 
to rediscover the Quaker way and to find appropriate words to express it. We are 
not without consolation. Signals come to us from all over the world that there 
is in the human spirit a prompting towards a better way that is 

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Matt the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat]

Ya' see?

This is why I don't like to take part in discussions of religion and the
like. It's why I find it quite fultile and not illuminating in any
way (where I take something positive away from it).

A lot of It's not really that way, it's really like
this.

And I just love being told what I really think.

Is almost finished with the Behe section,

Matt


At 11:29 AM 6/20/2001 +0200, you wrote: 
Dear
Matt, Rasheed, Marco, John, Roger  others,

Matt, on 16/6 22:39 -0500 you
reject defining religion as the essentially human pursuit of
re-experiencing DQ because, by definition, you don't
re-experience DQ, because that implies religion as the
only way to experience DQ and because Being part of a
religion means being part of ... static social
patterns..
If you define (undefinable) Dynamic Quality as (or rather
point to the moon of DQ with) pre-intellectual cutting edge of
reality and if reality = experience, than
you don't re-experience the same bit of DQ you experienced last time you
experienced DQ. You can however re-experience DQ as freedom from (even
the new) static patterns of value (that have formed from last time's
DQ-experience). The futility of trying to re-experience the same bit of
DQ, doesn't deter human beings from pursuing it, though, so I'd still
leave the re- in my definition as a kind of malicious
side-note :-)
Pursuing DQ is a way of experiencing DQ (if you are not so stupid
to try to re-experience last time's bit of DQ), just experiencing
anything and pursuing only static goals is another way, as those static
goals (sex on the biological level, status on the social, truth on the
intellectual) are just DQ in disguise (reflections of the moon?). And if
you pursue only static goals you may still accidentally
experience DQ that goes beyond these. My definition simply does
not imply that religion is the only way to experience DQ (even if
the static intellectual patterns of some religions seem to imply such
exclusivity. I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to
God but through me.).
Does being part of static social (and intellectual) patterns deter people
from pursuing DQ??? Maybe they don't experience them as static because
they identify with them and use them as platform to jump to
the moon? Maybe they are busy putting them to sleep
(Lila ch. 30)?
Religion is not the static patterns associated with it. They are only the
result of DQ experienced in the past. Once experienced DQ sometimes
latches and creates a new static pattern of value. Even if it doesn't
latch, the platform that was used for jumping gets the credit. Different
religions are like different platforms humanity uses for jumping to the
moon. That which connects and defines them is the act of jumping, the
pursuit. In another often used metaphor: religion is the climbing of a
mountain, not the different paths we follow to the top. (I like the
moon-jumping metaphor better, though, because of the implied
unreachability of the goal.)
Religion is essentially human. Some of us call ourselves atheists. Others
restrict religion to a separate part of their lives. Once we do so, we
start creating metaphysical patterns as platforms to jump to the moon
from (in the the rest of our lives, for those who restrict
religion).
If you write what each of these religions is pointing at (the
moon, as it goes) or trying to experience, well, that may be
DQ. I read that as support of my definition...

Matt, you wrote
further:
Where I stand now, I guess, would be that it doesn't matter
if God exists or not. ... because the Western conception of God
is always as a separate being alongside the universe. ... I ... cut him
out. My life doesn't change a bit. 
Marco, you apparently agreed
on 17/6 12:49 +0200:
Now call it God, if you want. It doesn't change a
lot.
You are right. It doesn't change anything at all on the rational level of
knowledge to equate DQ and God. (See John's posting of 15/6 15:38 +1000
or
members.ams.chello.nl/f.visser3/wilber/science.html
for an explanation of Wilber's levels of knowledge.) It diminishes both
DQ and God to equate and define them. To be more precise: it takes
them down to the rational level of knowledge, depriving the spiritual
level of a focal point for communication about meta-level
experience.
I propose not to equate them, therefore. Just leave them -undefined- at
the spiritual level of knowledge, beautiful moons to jump at. I just want
to point out the analogy of religion pointing at God and a MoQ pointing
at DQ. The act of jumping and trying to build up the platform we're
jumping from is the same. Accepting that enables us to learn from each
other: MoQites and religious people (sometimes combined in the same
person.

Matt on 16/6 22:39 -0500 you
also wrote:
I am extremely intrigued by pantheism
A fellow Quaker (now deceased) dug up the concept of
panentheism somewhere before World War II which sustained her
through the concentration camp of Mauthausen. Everything exists
within God. Isn't that a beautiful 

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear Matt,

Your irony tells me I may not have 
shown proper respect for what you think yourself you think (and experience). I'm 
sorry for that.
Should I have shown more humbleness by 
explicitly saying It's really like this for me if I interpret my 
experience correctly, but you are free to see it otherwise? Or did I 
interpret you wrong when you wrote the metaphorical air isn't quite 
right here (9/6 20:11 -0500)? I thought you meant others do 
not appreciate writing in metaphors. You don't take offence at my metaphors, I 
hope?
If you don't like to take part in 
discussions of religions and the like, don't, but I will miss your 
contributions.

With friendly greetings,

Wim 
Nusselder