[MD] MoQ as religion

[Heather Perella]

Hello David, Kevin and others,

    
> >        SA said:  Are you pointing towards what I
mentioned
> as scientists not recognizing thought or to
> scientists we are hormones and such?  Psychologists
> recognize thought, but where is a thought?  Is it
> material, thus, all in the brain tissue?  And in
> what way will they approach thought?  Like a
> philosopher?  Not yet.  This difference is what I
> was referring to when I said a scientist doesn't
> recognize thought.  I guess I meant in the way a
> philosopher does.  In the case of changing SOM to
> MOQ one may say Pirsig was as all philosophers were
> and are - the original psychologists.  As to where
> is thought and can a scientist point to it?  Well,
> can anybody point to something that merges with DQ?
> 
> David said:  Yes,

     Where is DQ?  That is actually my question.  What
I meant by merge was that thought comes close to DQ,
but can I actually point to where DQ is without having
to make DQ - static quality and then I can point at
what was (past tense) DQ.
 
> David said:  Point to the wall beside you.  There's
something
> that 'merges' with DQ.  In my view, walls 'merge'
> with DQ the same way thoughts do.  But to me 'merge'
> is a slippery word as it can be confused with 
> simple addition and dynamic quality cannot be added
> to anything. It's already there to begin with.
> 
        
> >    
  SA said:      As to what you said Kevin, I now
notice not
> just thought, but trust, as you mentioned, is a
> concept wrapped with belief.  Why is the static
> (thought for example) and dynamic wrapped with
> belief?   Anything that emerges from dynamic
> quality, even if static for somebody else, but
> dynamic to me (meaning I have not been able to
> define this anything) is, if any pursuit of wisdom
> or static quality 
> is to occur, something to belief may happen.  Even
> if trust comes into play that there will always be
> dynamic quality still, thus, something undefined in
> this pursuit of ours.
> >    
> 
> David said:  There is no trust necessary.

     Something was undefined and now is defined.  What
will I define something that I 'trust' is here, yet,
not defined yet?  DQ is a pool of possibilities, but
what will my fishing pole hook and catch?  What will I
reel in and be able to identify?  I don't know.  What
could I put in place of trust?  Trust for me is
setting value.  It is putting value into action. 
Defining value with a verb emphasis.  Yes... No... ?

SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com