Hi Mark,
On Dec 18, 2010, at 2:19 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi Andre, Marsha, > > Mark: > I will have to agree with Andre, that saying DQ is SQ is > counterproductive. Marsha: It is the way I know it: Quality(unpatterned/patterned). > Mark: > Yes, they are both descriptions within Quality, and the divide is > an intellectual one, but that is what MoQ is all about. Marsha: I find patterned experience to be a overlay onto the unpatterned. > Mark: > Saying that they are the same does not add to our creation of > a meaningful metaphysics. Marsha: My primary, meaningful metaphysics is Quality(unpatterned experience/ patterned experience. > Mark: > As such, DQ is SQ is a meaningless statement. Marsha: It represents my experience of Quality. > Mark: > We have created two parts for a reason. Marsha: Usefulness? But that should not prevent from looking beyond apparent usefulness. > Mark: > No need to say the distinction doesn't exist, we created it, so it does > exist, in its most absolute form. They Really exist. Marsha: The static patterns of value conventionally exist. > Mark: > Having said that, it is always useful to acknowledge that we are the > creators, so that we do not get stuck in some Truth. Marsha: We? As individuals we participate, but static patterns of value depend on a multitude of conditions, and in turn participate as a condition for other patterns. Marsha > > Mark > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Andre Broersen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Marsha responding to Tim by referring to Marsha and dmb's interaction >> (phew!): >> >> DQ is sq, sq is DQ. Most of us know this, but it sounds like >> Matt and Steve do not care to focus on a separate DQ experience. >> >> Andre: >> To keep on confusing, or rather suggesting that 'DQ is sq' is completely >> uprooting any kind of meaningful conversation Marsha, and certainly when >> talking about a static intellectual pattern of value called 'MOQ'. >> >> By substituting one for the other you make talking about metaphysics >> impossible, you are making talk of 'history' impossible, you are making talk >> of 'evolution' meaningless. It reminds me of the episode where Phaedrus sat >> in class in Benares and asked the professor if Hiroshima had actually >> happened...if it was real? >> >> There comes a time when you have to 'own up'. There IS a difference between >> static and Dynamic. Yes, they are related. They are related in their >> interdependency, their dependent-arising but that does not mean they are >> interchangeable. To confuse this relationship is to make anything >> conventionally meaningful, meaningless. Is that what you want? Reduce all to >> statements of 'relativity' to apply to all static patterns? >> >> 'Nothing is real, and nothing to get hum about' >> >> This inevitably leads to nihilism Marsha. You may feel that way in your own >> life but here we are talking about a metaphysics. You make it sound like it >> is a different process to you. I get the feeling that you have no idea about >> this. In a very important way MOQ is biography. Don't generalize your own >> biography to stand for the one we are discussing. Many here on this discuss >> do that... and find fault with Mr. Pirsig. >> >> Think again. Do not confuse Pirsig's MOQ with your own...He is a very smart >> and wise man. Sometimes wise men know us better than we think we know >> ourselves, and sometimes wise men are smarter than we think ourselves to be. >> >> > ___ 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
