Re: MD SOLAQI as a gift of understanding

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jan 27 2004 - 18:47:18 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: MD Awareness and Quality"

    Paul:
    In the MOQ, mind and consciousness are just one level of patterns
    created by value. Do you think the existence of thoughts depends on
    faith?

    DM: Disagree, how do you step out of consciousness or make
    consciousness an object, consciousness is inevitably tied up
    with all experience/quality/ even so-called objects in the sense
    that you cannot really separate subjects and objects -i.e. they always go
    together.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Joe" <jhmau@sbcglobal.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 8:43 PM
    Subject: Re: MD SOLAQI as a gift of understanding

    > On 25 Jan 04 10:28 AM Mati writes to Paul:
    > Mati previously said:
    > When we talk about defining the "Mind" or "consciousness" related to the
    > mind then, there seems to be distorted faith related to SOM.
    >
    > Paul:
    > In the MOQ, mind and consciousness are just one level of patterns
    > created by value. Do you think the existence of thoughts depends on
    > faith?
    >
    > Mati: Yes, when those thought patterns are based on the precepts of SOM.
    > Pirsig notes in regards to the fictitious "man", "Like 'substance' they
    > can be used as long as it is remembered that they're terms for
    > collections of patterns and not some independent primary reality of
    > their own." Lila 178. When we refer to the "Mind" in such a manner which
    > is easy to do, it leads us down the garden path back to SOM. It is also
    > this SOM manner that leads us to what I referred to as the mind being
    > the "Mystic Apparition".
    >
    > Mati previously said:
    > MOQ also resolves "Mystic" subjective reality into the social and
    > intellect.
    >
    > Paul:
    > Why equate subjective with mystic? I don't follow this move. How are you
    > using the term "mystic"?
    >
    > Hi Mati, Paul, Bo, and others:
    >
    > Musings on your conversation.
    >
    > joe: IMO for there to be objective or subjective classes of distinct
    things,
    > 'existence' has to be divided into real and intentional existence.
    > Objective reality and Mind, Will in an individual soul are postulated by
    > SOM, using the above division of existence. SOM implies two separate
    worlds
    > interacting at the same point from different moral structures in the same
    > individual. Two separate universes is an interesting proposal, and not
    > easily dismissed.
    >
    > Pirsig saw that evolution could explain the different levels in a moral
    way.
    > He could obtain the same understanding as SOM with fewer problems by
    > eliminating the word 'existence' by substituting the word 'value'.
    > Intentional and real value are equal in value. Interpret the statement
    "God
    > exists!" in terms of value, and quit arguing. Two questions: Are
    > intentional values a mystic knowledge obtained by following a particular
    > discipline, the mythos? Are real values the moral order?
    >
    > The Mythos enables actions for individuals. Other questions: is there a
    > different mythos for each individual? What determines the individual?
    What
    > is the 'value' of intentional intellect? Do I control my goals?
    >
    > In the moral order value is inorganic, organic, social, or intellectual.
    I
    > prefer the word 'existence'. Can I divide existence? The existence of
    the
    > inorganic, organic, social, and intellectual orders is the same yet
    > differentiated. DQ 'Value' seems to be a more patterned term than
    > 'existence.' SQ There is much that is obscure in the dq sq relationship.
    >
    > If there is a dividing line tetween the moral orders, then, it would seem
    > that 'more or less' applies. I don't suddenly jump the line between moral
    > orders, rather the one grows out of the other. The fuzziness of the line
    of
    > evolution cannot be put under a microscope! Does seeing that line define
    > the intellectual order? In me, an individual sentient, the dq lines of
    the
    > moral orders are combined in my individual dq. And, then, I, the
    > individual, have an awareness which keeps the dynamic of each of the moral
    > orders separate, since I am able to artistically manipulate patterns to
    DQ.
    > Do I define the intellectual order as that separation of my individuality
    > and my awareness? The intelligence in an individual resists patterning
    > since it is in the way I exist that I qualify as a sentient.
    >
    > Joe
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Tue Jan 27 2004 - 21:27:00 GMT