--- RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> ROG PLAYS WITH ANTELLOPE IN A
> PACK OF DINGOS AND ENCOURAGES
> AVID TO SHARE MORE OF HIS STUFF
>
>
> >AVID:
> >In this conversation I try to focus on what we
> don't agree to. It is not
> >that I object to focusing on DQ, but to
> overfocusing on DQ. ......
> >What makes MoQ unique is the structure of the SPQ,
> the idea of DQ is there
> >and important, but being ungraspable, let it be the
> eliminating sword of
> >reality [as in Darwin's biological evolution], and
> let us produce SPQ for
> >reality's elimination survival test.
>
> Rog:
> I like your approach.
>
> >AVID:
> >Here I disagree. Seeing object and subject as
> standalones as entities that
> >make up our universe is exactly what MoQ criticizes
> in the first place. MoQ
> >says that S/O are quality dependant, so you can't
> say that an SPQ is just
> >objects and subjects, here quality is missing from
> the structure. The
> >problem is how to structure SPQ in a way that S/O
> are [maybe] part of it but
> >don't stand there exclusively. Pirsig to my best
> knowledge, doesn't clarify
> >this point, but here is a point for further
> developments.
> >To transcend S/O, is as wage and as blurred as
> before, unless it goes to
> >another level, but what is this level made of? Dq
> is not good enough, to
> >much flowing, no structure, and SOM is too rigid.
> So the problem boils down
> >to the best possible structure of a SPQ
>
> ROG:
> Agreed. We must not forget they are patterns of
> Quality.
>
> (Roger previously quoted the Big Kahuna:)
> >"This solution is to dissolve all static patterns,
> both sane and insane, and
> > find the base of reality, Dynamic Quality, that
> is independent of all of
> them.
> >AVID:
> >Yes I agree, but only as phase one, after finding
> DQ we have to build the
> >SPQ structure in such a way that:
> >1. It will ask the question about its quality as
> part of its structure.
> >2. It will make constant improvement part of the
> system [evolutional, not
> >revolutional].
> >3. It will clarify the problems of layers.
> >4. It will relate to other SPQ, horizontally
> [within a layer] and vertically
> >[between layers]
> >
>
> ROG:
> Again, I think you are right on.
>
> >AVID:
> >You miss the point. The thought that essence is
> graspable [the dream of 0%
> >connotations] is a blinding dangerous way. The
> holocaust was one of its
> >consequences. Purity is not of this world.
> Interlinked connotations and
> >relationships between things is. The word doesn't
> bother me, its inflated
> >mythical value is. The essence, the core, the
> source, don't hold as much
> >quality as we traditionally think. Quality is in
> the harmonization of
> >details, here in the essence quest the details get
> lost, terrible things
> >were done in our history in the name of purity. So
> in my eyes its time to
> >live in our unsure world and figure it out, leaving
> purity out of it.
>
> ROG:
> My point was that it is ungraspable too. I think we
> are just talking past
> each other. Purity and Essence are insignificant
> terms to me , but they seem
> to be loaded with connotation to you. No big deal.
>
> >AVID:
> >What is a R word?
> >ROGER:
> >Asta la vista Quality!
> >AVID:
> >Here I lost you.
>
> ROG:
> American humor doesn't translate well. Especially
> since I am not very
> funny....nevermind.....
>
> >ROGER:
> >Great point, I will burn my copies of Lila right
> now.
> >AVID:
> >In my eyes LILA is not about essence it is about
> putting quality in the
> >center of our life as a primary cut in digesting
> reality. So hopefully you
> >haven't burnt your copies yet.
> >How many copies of Lila do you have? Isn't one
> enough?
>
> ROG:
> Blaspheemer!!!! He only owns one copy!!!!
>
> >ROGER:
> >I can't imagine it either. My analogy is just that
> there are multiple
> >dimensions to the answer of what is the base of
> reality. Reality is DQ
> >(water) and sq (waves). Every analogy has its
> limitations. Can't you
> >find anything you do agree with in the analogy?
> >AVID:
> >I see your point. But we have to be very careful
> with analogies, especially
> >within a new metaphysics. The problem is not what
> an analogy says, but what
> >it permits [once again it's connotations].......
> >If somebody disagrees with me and tries to prove
> I'm wrong, then I have the
> >chance to get more information of what I'm talking
> about, and I find it
> >valuable. But if somebody agrees with me I have no
> gain in information by
> >this agreeing so in my eyes agreement holds less
> value than disagreement.
>
> ROG:
> Yea. That is what I love about this forum. It will
> be healthy for you to
> air your ideas here. Sometime when I float an idea
> on the MOQ I feel like it
> is a herd of antellope chased by dingo dogs (wild
> Australian canines). My
> weaker concepts, analogies and phrasing gets culled
> out and only the strong
> survive. It helps better quality evolve. My most
> recent dingo dog is named
> David B. ;-)
>
> But I always try to be gentle, as I only do this
> because I love it.
>
> Rog
> please delete this address from your list. it was used by another
person and has now been unsubscribed. thanks! bjeanboop
>
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive -
> http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:10 BST