[MD] MoQ as religion [Belief Defininition]

[David Harding]

Hi SA,

Heather Perella wrote:
> Hello David,
> 
>      We find ourselves at a point of definition on two
> threads.  
>      It seems that your definition of DQ is 'something
> unusual'.
>      My definition of DQ is DQ is 'something that does
> not have definition'.

To continue from the other posting, DQ is not some thing unusual.  DQ is unusual however, in the sense that it's what SQ isn't, expected.  But really, the best way to discover what DQ is, is to quit 
asking and see for yourself.  If we really want a definition of Dynamic Quality though, let's use the Zen monks..

"Not this, not that."

to which I might add, nothing.  :-)

>      
>      Something unusual.  That is an interesting way of
> viewing DQ.  The universe is DQ.

No it isn't.

I agree with your
> definition, but I still see the definition that I have
> been using as valuable and also DQ.  Something that is
> unusual, we may define it with science or philosophy,
> but do we truly have THE definition of what it is that
> we are talking about.  We may statically latch layers
> of definition upon something as signposts pointing
> towards the static quality in question, but do we
> still question it, do we still notice something about
> it that is unusal and has no definition available for
> us to staticly latch with layers of identification?  I
> still think we do.  When we reach this point about
> anything, then I say we are at the horizon of static
> quality meeting with the rising sun of DQ.  The
> dharmakaya light shines through our pigeon holes and
> something dynamic may happen to our lives as long as
> we don't turn away from this event.
>      Does Pirsig give an outright definition to DQ?  

No

Cheers,

David.