[MD] MoQ as religion

[David Harding]

Heather Perella wrote:
> Hello David and others,
> 
> 
>>SA:
>>
>>>     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:
>>
>>I think it depends on how you do your finger
>>pointing.  If you point literally, making a
>>conscious effort, methodically noting all the small
>>details etc, then no, all you'll point at is static 
>>quality.  But if you point with an allusion,
>>drifting on breeze of the moment, then yes, you can
>>point at Dynamic Quality.
> 
> 
>      I think what I am not understanding here is
> referred to below in a question postulated to you.
>  
> 
>>David said:  There is no trust necessary.
>>
>>
>>>     Something was undefined and now is defined.
>>
>>Something undefined is different to Dynamic Quality.
>> Something undefined is a concept. Dynamic Quality
>>is not.
> 
> 
>      What is dynamic quality to you?  I thought DQ was
> something undefined and when we define it or point it
> out we have static quality.  

Dynamic Quality is not *something* undefined because DQ is not some thing, it is no thing or nothing.

DQ is not a concept
> either, because if it were we would notice SQ again.

I agree.

>  
> 
>>Trust for me is at best, a dim apprehension of
>>Quality, and not a good word at all for describing
>>the perspective of the MOQ.  'Trust' is what happens
>>when we get stuck in our patterns and think about 
>>things too much and worry and fear about what
>>reality is really like, and so we think we need to
>>'trust' something [because we don't really know] to
>>get us through.  In actuality however, 
>>reality/quality has always been, and is right now,
>>right here, infront of us. So we do know, you've
>>just got to *see* it.
> 
> 
>      I trust my wife.  I know my wife.

What's the difference between trusting and knowing to you?

To me trusting has shades of doubt.  If you trust the rope won't rip, trust the helmet won't break, trust the backpack won't fall apart, trust the water is ok, etc etc. How many times do you have to 
trust before everything falls apart?  If however, you know the rope won't rip, you know the helmet won't break, you know the backpack won't fall apart, etc. Then I think your situation is better 
before you start a climb up the mountain than if you were simply trusting things.

   I do not fear
> my wife.  I am not stuck with my wife.  I do not need
> to think about my wife too much.  I do not worry about
> my wife (sometimes, but I don't think that is a trust
> issue, it is genuine fear that something may happen
> with her, something as simple as will she make it home
> safely in the snowstorm).  So for me trust is
> delineated from what you defined trust to be.  I
> thought trust was something warm and good hearted.

I think it's warm and good hearted in the sense that alcohol is warm and good hearted to a depressed person.  It might be nice to have a drink or 'trust' for a while but it takes us away from reality, 
knowing and DQ.

   It
> is applying value in something or somebody in a
> certain elevated sense.  I trust that the root will
> hold me as I climb up the slope.  Therefore I allow
> all of my weight to be held by the tree root.   I trust
> and have put value into the strength of the tree root.
>  The quality of this whole situation is that I trust
> you may agree or disagree with what I have just said.
> 

You don't know this?

-DH