Hello David Harding, Welcome to the forum!
I have appreciation for your posts this past week and encourage you to continue. We are all on a journey here. Your voice is refreshing. Many thanks, Mary [David] 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. 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
