Correction:
> One which is built *FROM* the [context 1] assumption that all intellectual > quality comes from Dynamic Quality. I agree that the fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality; I've accepted this; I've never stated otherwise. On Aug 18, 2013, at 7:13 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> 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. Good. Drop the the reference to absolutes and everything else still stands: 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. > To point you to the cause of your misunderstanding - the MOQ proposes a > different type of intellectual quality. There is no misunderstanding! > One which is built *FROM* the [context 1] assumption that all intellectual > quality comes from Dynamic Quality. I agree that the fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality; I've accepted this; I've never stated otherwise. > 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! I agree with this statement. > But you don't want to accept this point *intellectually*. You just want to > keep pointing to the experiential side of this insight... No, not necessarily. I am normally defending against the misconception that I am anti-intellectual. > "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. It's ALL analogy, Baby, as I have acknowledged many times. The name is not the experience; I've got that. >> 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. I don't consider the unpatterned to equate to chaos. Dynamic Quality is that which cannot be divided, cannot be defined and cannot be known - unpatterned - undifferentiated - not this, not that. > Is that Dynamic Quality? Right, Dynamic Quality is not chaos. > You fail to see that your words are destroying Dynamic Quality, for you fail > to see that Dynamic Quality isn't anything. There's nothing being destroyed. > Look at your Zen quotes - do they say Dynamic Quality is anything? Do they > say it is 'unpatterened'? I read Buddhist texts and tomes, not Zen quotes. They often use the term non-dualistic. And saying "unpatterned" is no different than saying "indivisible, undefinable & unknowable" or saying 'not this, not that' or saying "not patterned". Marsha 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
