> [Arlo previously] > And, of course you may see this inevitable question, isn't it more mystically > degenerate for you (for us all) to be here than to be off doing something > more mystically immediate? If so, then why are you (we) here? Should Horse > shut this place down for our own good? > > [djh previously] > No - non-painting and non-poetry are not morally superior as - to speak from > a Zen perspective - they are still doing something! > > [Arlo] > Your previous argument rested on 'degrees' of degenerateness. You had argued > that between two options, the one that was MORE mystically degenerate was a > morally inferior option to one that would be LESS mystically degenerate. In > this context, you were arguing that 'intellectual' metaphysiquing was morally > inferior (MORE mystically degenerate) than someone 'pursuing DQ'. > > Now you've seem to have changed the parameters, suggesting that everything we > do is equally metaphysically degenerate, that 'painting' and 'non-painting', > or 'writing a metaphysics' and 'painting' are both equally degenerate so pick > one, it doesn't matter which, and do it 'good'. > > Before I continue, I'm going to ask you to clarify which of these positions > you're arguing, because they both have different trajectories.
[djh] The first - let me repeat. In the MOQ there is the perspective of static quality and there is the 'perspective' of Dynamic Quality. From the 'perspective' of DQ - all things by their nature are mystically degenerate. Some things are more mystically degenerate(static) than others. There is no equality here. Furthermore, from the perspective of static quality, according to 'the codes' of the MOQ the thing which is higher is morally superior. So all else being equal, when given the choice between writing a Metaphysics and sitting on a cushion (or painting a landscape) it's better to sit on a cushion (or paint a landscape). *However* things aren't always equal. It's impossible to always sit on a cushion or paint a landscape and not ruin the undefined nature of reality. Therefore, we should statically define our lives as best we can. Involved in defining our lives as best we can is fully expressing ourselves on the highest static quality level there is - the intellectual level. How we statically define our lives very much does *statically* matter and is important. Good is a noun. Is that clearer? I really appreciate your questions for clarification. I can't say that sincerely enough. 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
