>>>> djh: >>>> She *doesn't* know the MOQ's fundamental distinction between what static >>>> quality what Dynamic Quality is.. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Dynamic Quality is unpatterened value; static quality is patterned value. >>> I honestly don't know how this could be stated any clearer. What I get in >>> return is assertions so vague as to be meaningless. What's an homunculus >>> to do? :-). >> >> [djh] >> >> I don't know - engage in intellectual discussion? >> >> You say.. >> >> "I am at the MD to explore RMP's Metaphysics of Quality and the MoQ's >> relationship to Buddhism, and the way they play in living my life." >> >> Are you open to discussing this intellectually? >> >> If so, doesn't honest intellectual discussion involve agreement and >> disagreement? > > [Marsha] > Sometimes a hypothetical yes, sometimes hypothetical no, sometimes a less > certain maybe or maybe not, and sometimes: I clearly don't know. Sometimes > you might offer food for thought; that would be welcomed. If you want > absolute agreement or disagreement, you'll likely not get it from me.
[djh] Right - here's dmb's whole Marsha confuses SOM with Intellect rearing its ugly head. I'm not talking about SOM absolutes. To point you to the cause of your misunderstanding - the MOQ proposes a different type of intellectual quality. One which is built *FROM* the [context 1] assumption that all intellectual quality comes from Dynamic Quality. Once we accept this *intellectually* - we can discuss intellectual quality as if it exists. And it exists because when we look at the world in this way it becomes so much more coherent than when we don't. Good is a noun - not an adjective! But you don't want to accept this point *intellectually*. You just want to keep pointing to the experiential side of this insight... "I think some have skipped moving through the 180-degree point, which is not an intellectual exercise." And you're right - understanding that DQ is the source of all things isn't *ONLY* an intellectual exercise. But there's a reason why RMP didn't just keep his mouth shut when he discovered that DQ was the source of all things.. There isn't a person alive who doesn't pollute the world with fixed metaphysical meanings. And so RMP gave DQ a name and he gave the fixed definitions which define DQ a name as well. So these definitions such as 'Dynamic Quality is unpatterened' are not Dynamic Quality. > Marsha: > I have presented a statement that clearly delineates the fundamental > distinction between Dynamic Quality and static quality, and I've similarly > presented this same statement many times in the past, yet you continue > stating that I do not know the fundamental distinction. Am I to suppose you > are capable of having a honest intellectual discussion? Why did you need to > accuse me of not caring what others think by presenting *fabricated* > evidence? I suppose you know that accusation without evidence is mere > gossip. If I look at your history, I see no evidence that you are capable of > *honest* intellectual discussion; can you point me to a success? I will just > repeat the point of this particular post: > > Dynamic Quality is unpatterened value; > static quality is patterned value. > > I understand the distinction. [djh] No, you don't. Dynamic Quality isn't unpatterened value. Chaos is also unpatterened. Is that Dynamic Quality? You fail to see that your words are destroying Dynamic Quality, for you fail to see that Dynamic Quality isn't anything. Look at your Zen quotes - do they say Dynamic Quality is anything? Do they say it is 'unpatterened'? 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
