This is nuts. I SO enjoy doing this philosophy stuff. Keep going all.
Blnktmons says: The human mind applies a priori concepts to Reality that may
or may not exist.(esp. time, space)
/\
|
Coughlan says: What if this version of Reality is just the Inorganic Static
Pattern? And what if a priori concepts EXIST in their own right? (Within the
Intellectual Static Pattern)
(I am currently playing with the idea of making an addition to the Four
SQP's: Dimensional Static Quality. This one goes before Inorganic SQ. The
new chart would read: Dimensional, Inorg., Bio., Social, Intell.)
Blnktmon says: The goal of mystics throughout history has been to attain
unitive knowledge
of the divine ground (divine ground = Reality = Quality) through
self-mutilation and destruction (sometimes, but not necessarily always in
the
physical sense).
Coughlan says: What if they were actually trying to get to Mu State?
Theory: All questions can be seen as Y, N and M questions. I theorize that
there is something called Mu State. This is when all questions (in the
Static Intellectual Pattern) have been reset to Mu.
B: By doing this one could become aware and conscious of all
which is what they perceive God as being. Buddha is a good example.
Through
meditation and the elimination of desires, he was able to transcend samsara
(cycle of death, rebirth) and the a priori concepts (which we cannot prove
are real anyway) that imprisoned Reality thereby coming to a unitive
understanding of Reality.
C: What if there are equivalent Mu States in the other three SQP's? Is there
a state in which Society has neither been accepted nor rejected? Yes. Is
there a state in which Life neither exists nor doesn't exist? Yes. Is there
a state in which an electron neither exists nor doesn't exist? Yes. (Quantum
physics)
This is the old: if a tree falls on a mime in a forest, would anybody hear
him? (hehehe)
What if these mystics are trying to place all of their SQ's in Mu state so
that they may directly channel DQ? (Without pesky SQ's getting in the way.)
B: But on the question of whether or not the mind (not the self, because
there
are very important differences between the two) can come to an understanding
of Reality, I disagree with him.
C: You guys are mincing terms. What do you mean by "understand"? The mind
(ISQ) can UNDERSTAND (as in interpret and diagram and blah) reality (SQ)
because this is an intellectual feat. ISQ cannot BE reality. (Look at the
Heirarchy of Q) Therefore, it will always be incomplete because DQ just
keeps changing. Once we have a theory (ISQ), DQ will have moved on. ISQ
cannot map DQ. It can only map SQ. (which is what David was trying to get
to.)
B: Very few people throughout history have claimed
this knowledge but if we take their word for it, then it can be ascertained
that knowledge of Reality is possible.
C: I am a typical NT. I will not take anybody's word for anything.
See ya later
Sincerely,
Matt Coughlan
P.S. Look at a Yin-Yang sometime: Make one side equal Yes and the other side
equal No. There are two dots because whenever you say Yes, No is also
implied in the decision to lots of other things and vice versa.
The squigly line in the middle is Mu.
Go nuts.
>From: Blnktmons@aol.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Random patterns.
>Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:56:14 EST
>
>To all listening:
>
>I am happy that David made the distinction between Reality and the mind's
>perception of reality, because it was something that needed to be
>introduced.
> But on the question of whether or not the mind (not the self, because
>there
>are very important differences between the two) can come to an
>understanding
>of Reality, I disagree with him.
>
>The human mind applies a priori concepts to Reality that may or may not
>exist
>(esp. time, space) and comprehends sensations in terms of those concepts.
>This creates the mind's perception of reality, which will always be
>different
>from another person's mind because we are each on different levels in terms
>of understanding the most important a priori concepts. Reality is caged
>between the concepts our mind applies to it and our own desires thus when
>perceived it takes on different modes.
>
>The goal of mystics throughout history has been to attain unitive knowledge
>of the divine ground (divine ground = Reality = Quality) through
>self-mutilation and destruction (sometimes, but not necessarily always in
>the
>physical sense). By doing this one could become aware and conscious of all
>which is what they perceive God as being. Buddha is a good example.
>Through
>meditation and the elimination of desires, he was able to transcend samsara
>(cycle of death, rebirth) and the a priori concepts (which we cannot prove
>are real anyway) that imprisoned Reality thereby coming to a unitive
>understanding of Reality. Very few people throughout history have claimed
>this knowledge but if we take their word for it, then it can be ascertained
>that knowledge of Reality is possible.
>
>by the way, you all have very interesting things to say about dynamic and
>static quality and if it means anything, i'd like to thank you for
>contributing to such a (dare i say?) exciting forum from which the rest of
>us
>can come to a deeper understanding of what Mr. Pirsig has to say.
>
>justin
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:40 BST