[MD] Defining Dynamic Quality

[Scott Roberts]

Ant, David M, et al,

DM said:
>Your changes are good. But you know I think the time has come
>for DQ to be very precisely framed, or cornered, because it needs
>to come out of the cult cupboard, and become available to everyone,
>even Matt.

Ant replied:
As Dynamic Quality is the continuum that enables things to exist, it is
beyond definition.

Scott:
That sure looks like a definition to me. Especially since "things that 
exist" is just as problematic, definition-wise (which is to say that the 
concept of SQ is no more and no less definable than DQ). In fact, all 
philosophical terms of interest have this problem. Here, by the way, is 
another definition of DQ (under the name Nirvana):

"Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana." (Merrell-Wolff)

However, this is given within a system of ideas:

"When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, consciousness of 
absence of objects arises.
Consciousness of objects is the Universe.
Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana.
Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and Nirvana, 
yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the same."

Now as a definition of DQ, this differs somewhat from that of the MoQ, but 
that's a separate argument. Here I am only pointing out that DQ is defined. 
Through statements such as these, or through a book called LILA, DQ gets 
defined, much as axioms about sets define what a set is in mathematics, even 
though there is no actual definition of a set in the form "A set is defined 
as such-and-such". The problem is not one of definition, rather it is that 
DQ/Nirvana is rare in human experience (or rather, rarely acknowledged and 
rarely "experienced" in its purity -- reflection shows that DQ is a 
necessary condition of all experience).

- Scott