From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Wed Jan 14 2004 - 03:33:06 GMT
David M,
> I do think DQ underlies SQ to the extent that
> I take static quality as being identifiable only if
> something repeats, hence static patterns. Clearly
> not everything repeats. There is only one Newton
> you might say. Or there may be one off particles
> that never repeat, are never identified. Creativity
> has the option of always changing, therefore no repeat.
> It seems to me that, in a sense, DQ withdraws its tendency
> to creativity when it repeats. It does the same again, it
> is no longer creative, therefore no pattern, nothing static.
> In a way such static less creativity is pure nothingness,
> on the edge on this cosmos. A particle pair that appears
> and disappears forever.
To be observed to be repeated requires an awareness that persists through
the repetition. I am of the opinion that that awareness is another name for
DQ, for it accommodates all patterns, so is not itself a specific pattern.
But in order to grasp the static pattern *as* a static pattern, that
awareness is also another name for SQ (the thought of the static pattern is
the static pattern recognized as a pattern). (If this doesn't make sense --
well, it shouldn't. DQ and SQ are not two things or categories. They make up
a polarity, or self-contradictory identity.)
Or to take another tack, DQ without SQ is chaos, SQ without DQ is
meaningless. One without the other is a logical and empirical absurdity.
Therefore, one can not underlie the other.
> I also think that there is a way back to
> experiencing DQ without thinking. Meditation is a withdrawal
> from thinking. There is a form of experience without division,
> a floating, drifting experience of pure becoming, where
> perhaps you focus on a flower and experience its motionless
> utterly flowing becoming, its pouring forth into your experience.
> Its unity with your experience.
Then why did the intellect arise in the first place? As I've mentioned
before, if one is not to work through the intellect (in two senses: to apply
the intellect as well as one can (ie, to learn detachment in all things) and
to pass through the intellect, though what one passes to is, for normal
consciousness, unknown, though revelation claims it be non-dual Intellect),
then the highest value thing to do is to lobotomize oneself.
The preceding should be taken somewhat tongue-in-cheek, at least the
lobotomizing part. In fact, I consider meditation to be a high-powered way
of training the intellect in detachment, and disciplining it in improving
concentration. It takes a suitably trained and disciplined intellect to turn
into Intellect. In non-dual Intellect, the knower and the known become one,
but without ceasing to be a knowing, which is why it can be called
Intellect, and not "pre-intellectual" DQ.
- Scott
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 : Wed Jan 14 2004 - 03:34:50 GMT