> Hi Marsha,
> I fully understand what you are saying by the not knowable stuff
> below. I have been there and moved on, or maybe come back is more
> This "not D,D,K" is not an unusual way in which to present a
> metaphysics. As you know, I do not care for dogmatic religions, so
> keep that in mind when reading the following. It is always important
> to not replace the ³not D,D,K² with the ³D,D,K.² Such replacement
> knowledge is not the real thing, but a mode of discussion. When we
> wrap experience in intellectual knowledge, it is only for the purposes
> of experience exchange. This is important for us to act in
> When the mystic known as Jesus tried to explain his awareness he had
> to do so in the vernacular of the day. When he spoke of "our father",
> he was presenting an experience, and not suggesting that there was a
> father as is commonly understood. Instead, the experience he had was
> similar to an experience of his when in the presence of his true
> father as a child. He tried to project this experience in the best
> way he could. Unfortunately, this experience then became D,D,K which
> replaced it. Thus the rise of authoritarian religion who used these
> metaphors as if they were real.
> This for-mentioned mystic was told that he was not allowed to have the
> experience he did, nor was he allowed to try to tell others about it.
> He, of course, did not believe that anyone should proclaim what
> experience anybody should or should not have, and the rest is biblical
> history. This is the problem with the "leader-follower paradigm.
> What is first personal becomes dogmatic and then the next thing you
> know people are being killed in its name.
> From experience we create intellectual knowledge, that is a paradigm
> for a progression of the subjective to the objective. There is no
> reason to bar DQ from this human progression. The purpose of the
> objective is simply to be able to exchange the subjective.
> Unfortunately such "objective" then becomes a law of sorts.
> Therefore, Pirsig's suggestion that we should not "define" DQ is in
> accordance with many philosophies (religions?) that say the same
> thing. I have brought in the admonition that "one should not worship
> false idols" which means exactly the same thing. That is, to not
> replace the subjective with the objective. For what we have is a
> relationship with DQ, and not its objective (or wordy) presentation.
> Therefore, if we stick true to the not D,D,K premise, we are left with
> not being able to discuss it. This is the trap that David claims when
> he states that everything that we think of is sq. But it is not sq,
> if we realize what sq really is. It is simply an objectification for
> conversational purposes. By not being allowed to discuss DQ in an
> objective format, we are not allowed to share experiences with other,
> and must remain mute on the subject (also similar the Christian vow of
> silence that David points to). However, with the understanding that
> all we are doing is provided each other with "wrapped gifts" of
> experience, we do not have to succumb to the "don't speak the name of
> God" kind of thing. For such a statement is dogmatic on its own and
> says we cannot discuss DQ.
> So, your statement of "not D,D,K" is not meant to be dogma, but simply
> your expression that you understand that the "gifts" we give each
> other contain absolutely no thing, for that is DQ. Your statement on
> the nature of sq or patterns is exactly the same thing. It is an
> experience you have, and in turn is "no thing". The manner in which
> you wrap such nothingness, is by means of rhetoric. Any form of
> rhetoric is contextual and does not stand on its own, for the words
> are just words. This is why I ask you to complete your rhetoric so
> that I can understand it.
> Having said that, my "experience" of free will, is the same as my
> "experience" of DQ.
> I hope what I present is clear, you are not required to agree with it.
> I am simply presenting it as a suggestion. How this impacts your own
> experience is up to your own free will. Such a thing does not reside
> in the brain, but encompasses the whole body as mindfulness
> demonstrates. In fact it encompasses the Dynamic.
> On 3/1/12, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:
>> Dynamic Quality is not divisible, not definable and not knowable, though it
>> can be experienced.
>> Static patterns of value are processes, conditionally co-dependent,
>> impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized, that pragmatically tend to
>> persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. Within the MoQ,
>> these patterns are morally categorized into a four-level, evolutionary,
>> hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.
>> Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns:
>> patterns depend upon ( exist relative to) innumerable causes and conditions
>> (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) parts and the collection of
>> parts (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) conceptual designation
>> (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent existence. Further,
>> these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static
>> pattern of life history.
>> If 'free will' is other than its definition, what is it?
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html