Re: MD Re: Rorty (Big Self & small self)

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jan 14 2004 - 19:21:02 GMT

  • Next message: skutvik@online.no: "Re: MD SOLAQI confirmed?"

    Hi Scott

    I do not disagree with what you have said apart
    from slight adjustments. Binary thinking, differentiation,
    seems to place its poles in opposition, like
    Being/Nothing. I like to think that we could have a
    term for the unity prior to all differentiation and there is
    a hint of this in either DQ or Becoming, I quite like
    Cupitt's Be(com)ing, where if the withdraw the 'com'
    you get Being. Is there also an awareness of something
    transient and unrepeated in every experience?
    And perhaps, the most comprehensive awareness does include
    a falling away of intellect/division etc, with the full turning of the
    circle.
    But here description is probably proving awkward. But essentially
    I feel close to what you have said.

    regards
    David M
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:33 AM
    Subject: Re: MD Re: Rorty (Big Self & small self)

    > 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.htm
    l
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >

    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 - 20:04:53 GMT