Hi Mark, The analogy 'shines through in the present moment' is fine for Dynamic Quality, but these analogies do not get at what Dynamic Quality is because that's not Dynamic Quality. Even saying 'that's not Dynamic Quality' is not Dynamic Quality.
> [Mark] > I am not sure that religion, as properly followed, has problems. If > one tries to make subjects and objects out of religion, then there are > problems. Religion is one's own personal relationship with the > cosmos, as such it is beyond the descriptive aspect, in exactly the > same way Quality is. If one becomes objective about religion, then > one is on the wrong path, and is simply playing an intellectual game, > which is trivial. The division in MoQ is an analogy which may or not > be useful to ones own reality. It is how one interprets it that is > under discussion. I think that the MOQ is the best Metaphysics around and can improve anyone's life. Beginning with understanding this first division. > [Mark] > When you describe an act with words to someone else, it becomes a > thing, a transference, if you will. Being in the act is Dynamic > Quality. It has no measure, it is pure experience without words, > subjects, or objects. It is only on encapsulation that it fosters > tangibility. At least that is my interpretation of MoQ. > I agree. > > We do 'live in the past tense' as you describe. Unless you are experiencing > > DQ which is no thing. Not you or I or anything else. But the moment you > > open your mouth or the moment your mind grasps DQ, or even calls it Dynamic > > Quality it is static and not Dynamic Quality. > > [Mark] > I would have to disagree. We live in the ever present which is > Dynamic Quality. As one is calling it Dynamic Quality, it is a > dynamic process without words. This may be a subtle point for you, > but there is a big difference between talking about DQ, and living DQ. > Does this make sense? I would have to say that DQ is everything more > than it is no thing.The static portion is only that which we talk > about, which is part of the societal level. We transfer experience > into words and objects which we can then relate to another. As you > are thoroughly involved in the present, there is no past tense. Yes that makes complete sense but you seem to be ignoring the fact that we are static quality. It would be nice to think that somehow we can avoid static quality but we cannot. Every thing is static quality. That is *the* definition of static quality. When you call something Dynamic Quality you've just used a word. In fact your whole sentence (As one is calling it Dynamic Quality, it is a dynamic process without words) has created a you and a whole bunch of words describing Dynamic Quality. This is all static quality. It would be nice to think that we are somehow inextricably a 'part' of Dynamic Quality. Trick it, if it isn't watching, so that we can have Dynamic Quality for ourselves. But if you use that kind of thinking then you've turned Dynamic Quality into something very static. You cannot grasp Dynamic Quality. For the same reason Zen Masters call Zen useless Dynamic Quality is nothing! 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
