Yes, and I have no clue on your "take", for Quality is a relationship
with existence. In your "acceptance of evolution", who is doing the
observation you speak of? Is this order of levels truly the manner in
which you see reality? If so, why do you see it that way? Also, is
"evolutionary reality" the same thing to you as "reality"?
When you state a "logic for reality must begin" is this pointing
towards the assumptions you are making for the logic which results
from this? If this is so, I agree that the presence of DQ and SQ must
be assumed (created without further validation) for MoQ to be
constructed as it is. From that assumption comes all else. It is a
mind/body thing, nothing new there.
As I understand it, the definition by many is that SQ is what results
once your "emotions" are brought into the realm of the intellect.
This SQ is then used to allow us to speak of such things. Such
speaking is the exchange of objects in the form of words, which by
definition makes it S/O-based. Once a speech is received, it becomes
part of DQ once again until the thought is brought up again for
discussion or contemplation. When one is not thinking or talking
about it, it resides in DQ, which is nowhere, but potentially
somewhere. Kind of like an electron I guess.
I do not think that S/O is meant to validate reality, it is meant for
describing it. When I try to explain a painting to you, I am not
validating that painting.
Just so that I understand, does your realization of evolution in
existence include your "emotions"? Or are you speaking strictly from
an intellectual point of view? Your emotions do not have to be in
acceptance of anything I would think. They are free. Often the
physical is governed by such freedom. This would be the "biological
patterns" that Pirsig speaks of.
I am not sure what you mean by the "individual". Are you speaking of
the physical body? The spiritual is DQ in my view. It is not
anything except what we claim to be "our selves" that is witnessing
the body. If by individual you mean "that by which we label ourselves
for others", then that could be considered a presupposition, I guess.
If by either/or you mean "not that, but this" then I can agree with
What S/O realizes in my opinion is "meaning". Such meaning lies
outside S/O, but it is enabled. That way when somebody says "I kicked
the dog", it creates meaning for us. It is simply a manner for
To translate your second to last sentence: S/O is a method for
exchange, which has no power for the realization of DQ. I will say,
that while it cannot realize it, since, as you say it is the cart
before the horse, it can bring about realization. Often when a book
is read a certain realization comes about which was not there before.
Take ZAMM for example. Many are leading a different life because of
it. This is the power of S/O. But one must always see it for what it
is, a method for communication of something much deeper than words.
The exact words are trivial. If one perseverates on definitions and
exact wording, then one becomes an academic philosopher or a lawyer.
As far as I know, "evolution" is a term used in S/O, like: "that was a
result of evolution". So I am not sure what you mean by non-starter,
unless you are using the term differently. It is simply a term used
for certain awareness. We made up the term "evolution" (as well as
Quality); we have complete control over what it is, not the other way
around. We are not controlled by ghosts, remember? Something we
create cannot turn around and create us; if it can, then we are
speaking of a religion where our concept of God somehow bit us in the
butt. This is why logic cannot move outside of itself, there is
nothing to move out too. It would be like adding a room to a house,
and then claiming that the house is in the room. Just plain silly.
On 6/15/12, Joseph Maurer <jhmau@comc...> wrote:
> Hi Mark and All,
> I have no clue to your take on the delineation of existing reality in
> evolution? For myself I accept evolution as the description of an observed
> hierarchal order of levels in existence characterized in MOQ, indefinable/
> definable, DQ/SQ evolutionary reality.
> IMHO the discussion of the logic for such reality must begin in MOQ's
> description of DQ/SQ not static S/O. S/O does not validate reality from a
> perception of the indefinable, necessary in a realization of evolution in
> existence. In S/O the individual is perceived in an either/or relationship
> apart from a beginning existence. The individual is presupposed, not
> metaphysically existent DQ. Essence, S/O, has no justification for
> realizing indefinable existence, except through the supposition of reality,
> the cart before the horse. Evolution is a non starter in S/O.
> On 6/14/12 7:10 PM, "118" <ununoctiums@gmai...> wrote:
>> blank faces remind me of some in this forum, putting their little
>> blocks together hoping to find an answer there. They forget they are
>> just putting blocks together. They have Quality so wrapped up in
>> fancy paper and bows that they cannot see Quality.
> 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.