Re: MD Undeniable Facts

From: Scott R (
Date: Fri Apr 18 2003 - 02:22:15 BST

  • Next message: Scott R: "Re: MD Undeniable Facts"


    > I think Quality (pure Quality, not DQ), aka Morality (pure morality, not
    > prudence) is primary, but I don't think it can be said to be a context,
    > because there is nothing there with it, "there is no there there", and a
    > context requires at least two things and a place and time and all that.
    > Quality is characterless, undefined, neither good nor bad, because where
    > there is pure primary Quality, there is nothing else there to notice
    > anything about it, everything else is within it. There is no point in
    > looking to that primary quality for anything, except as a source of
    > so you can't say it is a context that other contexts can get themselves
    > square with. It doesn't contain the truth or anything like that.

    This is why I suggested looking on DQ as "primary context", not "primary"
    (and note that I said Quality is beyond the "context/in-context"
    distinction, since a context and its contents is form). Another way to say
    "primary context" is "ultimate background". What I am getting at is that to
    be aware of any piece of SQ requires that the SQ "exists" (etymologically:
    "stands out"), for which it needs a background. Now one layer of SQ can
    serve as background for another, but behind them all is what? I nominate DQ,
    but the next step is to say that this ultimate background is the "pure
    perceiver". Since this in turn is an undecideable non-thing, the mystery of
    DQ remains.

    > I don't think "DQ" is primary though. The way we usually use it, it is an
    > ideal formed by SQ beliefs. And the way I think of it, it is a power in
    > service of SQ, trying with infinite care to continue to realize all
    > expectations. I'm still pushing the "expectation" understanding of
    > and quality, because we are familiar with how an expectation carries both
    > value judgement and prediction, based on past knowledge of patterns. I
    > it at the locus of experience, creating the expected (usually) and the
    > expector.

    I suggest that DQ is also the "pure expector" in this formulation, but now
    in this:

       Expectation being realized is the quality event that creates
    > subject and object. Realizing the expectation is quality, something doing
    > what it should is quality. (Expectations may be changed in
    > by DQ to be of the reality that DQ ends up creating, if we hadn't been
    > expecting something that had to happen to satisfy other stronger
    > expectations.)

    the "expector" is, when DQ pre-consciously acts, not getting what was
    expected. But I think there is something to this. Are you aware of the work
    of Georg Kuhlewind? He says (in explicating the thought of Rudolf Steiner),
    that what we think of as thoughts are actually dead thoughts, merely the
    carcass of "living" thinking. The "live" thinking goes on super-consciously
    (as he would say), not sub-consciously (which I guess could also be thought
    of as "pre-conscious"). See his "Stages of Consciousness", chapter 1.

    - Scott

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 18 2003 - 02:22:46 BST