this is also my first post and just as the other gentleman i ask you to excuse this if it is not quite up to the discussion groups statement ideologies. well here it goes ... i was thinking what if we change the word ''morality'' to ''necessity'' now please do remember that Q according to persig is the beginning, the buddha. now if Q is the beginning why are we slicing it to be made up of two parts? oh wait hold up that is completely off track to what i was trying to get at. back to necessity, well then change the word morality to necessity my reasoning behind this is if we look at quality as being the id the one the beginning but with the two parts of dynamic and static then we also find that dynamic if not more moral is definitely more necessary. life cannot occur without change ''dynamics are involved in every aspect in life rather life is dynamic. life stems from Q and as some see it, it is Q's highest form. so if life is equal to the dynamic and life begins with quality,(and may be qualities highest form ) then it would be more than apparent that dynamic quality (life) is definitely more necessary than the static quality (the way we live) if there has been an emotive statement made at all it is most definitely that there is a question of what is more ''moral'' or necessary. the quality that is life cannot occur without change the static or routines by which we live only lesson the quality by which we live they are traps if you will therefore can be viewed as not only inconsequential, but unnecessary. hey i know this is off the wall and is probably an emotive statement in itself so please do tear this apart if need be no better way to learn than to be shown your faults thank you for your patience with me chris ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
