Re: MD New Level of Thinking

From: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com
Date: Sat Nov 27 2004 - 15:42:57 GMT

  • Next message: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com: "Re: MD Self, the great unconscious"

     
    In a message dated 11/27/04 10:05:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,
    jse885@earthlink.net writes:

    My view, which differs from the MOQ, is that DQ is never independent of SQ.
    Rather, DQ and SQ always exist only insofar as they oppose each other as
    they constitute each other, that is, they follow the form of contrdictory
    identities. And so I reject the concept of "pure experience". All
    experience is always a DQ/SQ opposition, which is best exemplified by our
    experience of intellect.

    Hi Scott and Steve,
     
    Please forgive the intrusion.
     
    Just some thoughts.
     
    DQ, Quality, and 'Quality experience' are interchangeable. They all mean DQ.
     
    DQ is a "Pure (raw) experience," where SQ would be the concepts that are
    applied to our perceived reality. SQ is also derived from experiences, and
    includes subject, object, and events. Quality came before subject and object and
    events. We discover DQ, we do not create it. Our ideas are no more than DQ
    revealed to us; right or wrong. Once we realize it is right; the concept holds
    true as best as we can know in the moment, then DQ becomes SQ. DQ can also come
     from SQ, but I don't necessarily see it as an opposition.
     
    I'll give an inadequate example of this. In Lila he said something about a
    song. This song is reality, it is here and now, and it is unquestionable as to
    whether or not it is a song. You discover the song, and feel it has DQ. You
    rush out and buy the record. After playing it too many times, it becomes SQ,
    but you keep the record to play for your friends, for which it once again
    becomes DQ, until it becomes SQ in their view. A few years later, it comes back
    on the radio, and the experience from the first time you heard the song comes
    back. Quality changes when you view it. SQ/DQ are intertwined.
     
    Newton's laws of 'Time and Space' were shown to be inadequate by Einstein;
    Einstein's theory became the DQ. Hawking believes Einstein's 'Theory of
    relativity' to be inadequate as time changes from where you view it. It may be that
    Newton's laws of 'Time and Space' have DQ, and now Einstein's doesn't.
     
    In the example of the song, SQ is the song, and DQ is the experience from
    the song which becomes SQ.
     
    DQ is not superior in any way to SQ other than DQ is an undiscovered SQ. Our
    immediate view of this experience is DQ. Once it is viewed and accepted it
    becomes SQ. Once a pattern in SQ that has been questioned, and dismissed, but
    is viewed anew, then it may once again become DQ.
     
    Just as with scientific theories, no matter how much data you have used to
    prove your theory, you cannot know that the next data you use will not disprove
     it. DQ may be the discovery of a lifetime, or it may turn out to be not even
     worthy of becoming SQ, then as it is viewed in a new light, it may once
    again emerge as DQ.
     
    SQ is like a divided reality; a reality that was there prior to the
    experience, so it may not be true reality; just 'A' reality, a map we use to go
    through life with, until our experience changes it. DQ is the experience that
    changes it(?)
     
    I like your reference to Buddhism as "Middle ground." The Quality found in
    SQ/DQ might be this 'middle ground', or the 'Sweet spot' Mark Maxwell speaks
    of.
     
    What SQ/DQ offers is a map that removes the division between subject,
    object, consciousness, and the world outside. "Pure experience," or raw experience
    allows you the ability to know what you are experiencing is real. It doesn't
    require the intellectual division of 'stuff'. It is real, as it has been
    experienced. It doesn't require as Richard Prior once offered his wife after
    being caught in the bed with another woman; "Are you going to believe me, or your
    lying eyes?"
     
    SQ/DQ removes the division between thought and 'The real thing'. The
    undivided experience plays partly on the 'Knower', the consciousness or state of
    mind, while also playing a part of the 'Known'.
     
    MarshaV mentioned her paining. This represents a good James example. The
    paint before applied to the painting represents the 'Known', and after applied
    represents the 'Knower', and when viewed represents the Known and the Knower at
     the same time. It is DQ - SQ combined. You don't need to analyze that
    painting, just simply enjoy the experience, the "Pure experience" of it.
     
    I like the idea of "Pure experience," or raw experience, or undivided
    experience you speak of, as anything experienced is real, as real gets, in the
    moment it is experienced.
     
    Like I said, just thoughts; rambling thoughts. No need for reply, I just
    wanted to offer my experience of what I have read in this thread.
     
    Chin

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 27 2004 - 15:46:03 GMT