From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis (marquis@nccn.net)
Date: Sun Aug 07 2005 - 20:35:42 BST
JC wrote:
___________________
You can't understand DQ by improving your SQ. It's not theoretically
possible and in real life it never seems to work that way. The nature of DQ
is the higher level informing the lower of resonances it knew not.
Improving one's SQ is just a way of perpetuating patterns that are obviously
not working. (demonstrated by "the need for improvement") That is because
existing patterns become attached to an ego whose main "goal in life" is the
perpetuation of itself and it's concommitant patterns.
__________________
You can't 'understand' DQ at all. Understanding takes rationalized,
articulate thought, and so is limited to sq. DQ / no thing ness / Tao is
ineffable.
'Improving' sq would involve change wouldn't it? And, the engine of change
/ becoming as opposed to no change / being is something we call DQ isn't it?
In fact, all patterns change (have inherent DQ), so 'being' really does not
exist. It is just the ones that are stable enough to be modeled as static
that we label 'static' patterns and associate with sq.
Contrary to the above is it not also possible for the ego to get attached to
the 'higher moral purpose' of DQ for romantic DQ's sake alone and thus avoid
any obligation to the static stable social patterns inherent in the society
one finds oneself? Isn't this an easy rejection of any value the current
stable social / intellectual net of patterns may have? If one takes the DQ
high ground isn't easy to avoid any dirty arguing about which sq pattern is
better? Isn't it easy to avoid intellectual criticism?
Quality implies getting better. This 'better' is a comparative term between
two stable patterns, not any sq whatsoever and DQ. DQ is the vehicle, the
means, the ferryboat, upon which we embark to move from one state of
evolution to a second state that is (maybe) higher quality. The only way we
know anything about 'better' is to compare two sq patterns.
Non-latchededness does not mean anything, literally 'no thing'. Only when
there is a latch can 'better' be determined.
How I would determine the degenerates from the messiahs beforehand (IOW who
to wager for based on the likelihood of producing a higher sq in the
future), as you ask in another thread is who has general good character to
start with. I can find 'better' use for my time than just gambling with DQ
for the ??? of it.
Veneration of DQ all by itself is just escapism IMO. DQ and sq are always
together, inseparable, and are really two labels, a necessary foundational
dualism, that enable the MOQ, nothing else. This grasping of the
inseparability of DQ and sq is a third stage of understanding (first sq by
itself, then DQ by itself, and then the harmonious relationship of the two).
To experience DQ directly does imply to me voracity, seeing things just as
they are without the ego's pre judgment filter in place (rejecting what
doesn't match the current intellectual static pattern net), if only briefly.
To capitalize on the value of this clarity, however, involves choice. It is
in utilizing one's power of agency that one responds to DQ. And choice
basically involves selection between sq patterns based on what is 'better'.
And thus one grows. Abandoning all sq as worthless, polarizing DQ vs sq, is
not growth.
My definition of an individual: a localized net of sq patterns capable of
autonomous response to DQ. A self-aware agent, while of course not separate
from the whole, has this unique attribute that does set it apart in this
respect.
Live well,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 07 2005 - 21:12:35 BST