[MD] Dreaming and death

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

you're making me feel all warm and fuzzy, ooooh. i owe
you a  cuddle.
 
Mark: I'm always up for a cuddle. ;-) Thanks Gav

yeah i think i am  catching on to what you mean now re:
creating: you kill the self (sq), open  to the source
(DQ) and produce new relations of static q or, simply,
new  static quality patterns. it is, like you said
about sex, un petit mort. the  french *are* pretty
cool.
 
Mark: Je agree 100% 

i think this is a really fruitful way  of looking at it
mark: the constant dying and rebirth thing. it does
allow  us to get a handle, both metaphysically and
existentially, on the big Qs like  what happens after
we die. a lifetime of little deaths culminating in  the
big dead graduation party.... 

hey don't write my academic  potential off just
yet....may sneak in the back door one day. and  luckily
there are more diligent and patient folk like yourself
and ant  that are sticking at it. there's a place for
me somewhere in it all mate....i  like surprises.
 
Mark: I can tell by the essay you read at the MoQ conference that you have  
the same disdain for education as it currently stands as i do. I don't think i  
could change it from the inside as well as you could Gav? I'll do what i can  
though.
 
Bonsoir mon l'ami Australien.
Mark
 
p.s. excuse the french? i've been told to practise it you  see.

--- Squonkonguitar at aol.com wrote:

> hey guys,
>  
> mark you said that sleep and death are a case  of
> dropping  the static and opening up to the dynamic...
> 
> so we can,  and  of course ultimately do, go totally
> dynamic...we return to the  source...and  then the
> source produces manifest reality in the wake  of
> quality  events.
> 
> now this source is real to me.  it ain't some
> wishy-washy  speculation; it is integral to an  MOQ
> that
> makes sense. without this 'source  - world -  source'
> cycle the MOQ don't work.
>  
> Mark: Hello  Gav, Me too. No wishy washy here.
> I feel it is VERY important to state  that a proof of
> this is to  create.
> 
> Gav:
>  people are scared of death; of pain, of the last
> breath, of  hell,  of not-being. i think that is
> obvious
> in our society: we can't  handle  death and we can't
> handle sex: anglo-american society is  severely
> retarded  in these respects.
>  
>  Mark:
> Not half. Sex, the little death? Come come Gav. ;-)
>  
> Gav:
> does the MOQ affirm that death, like everything
>  else,
> is  essentially illusory?
>  
>  Mark:
> Living is the illusion, if living is an attatchment
> to sq  patterns. It's a  
> strange twist of linguistics that creative  endeavour
> is sleep-like, death-like, 
>  to kill the  'self'.
> To be alive is to die it seems?
> No wonder poets have  such a good time of it,
> especially the French  poets.
>  
> Gav:
> why do so many indigenous peoples worship their
>  ancestors? is it  that they realise that their
> ancestors continue  to influence manifest  reality,
> via
> DQ? this seems right to  me.
>  
> Mark:
> It's a pity Gav you are not fighting  for the MoQ on
> the inside of academia.  
> That's my opinion  if you will forgive me? You could
> do allot for the MoQ on 
>  the  inside. What a shame.
> 
> Gav:
> what is dynamic  quality?
>  
> Mark:
> I love it. You've become so  enthusiastic you've
> forgotten. DQ =  Nothingness.
>   
> Gav:
> is it the integrated
> consciousness/intelligence of  everything  (and
> nothing)?
>  
> Mark:
> :-)  sq can't handle this.
> 
> Gav:
> i know we aren't supposed to  talk much about DQ -
> unpatterned  reality - but it is there and it  is
> integral, the lynchpin, of the MOQ.
>  
>  Mark:
> Cannot talk about. But one may say, 'Create'. 'Do'.
>   
> Gav:
> as far as i am
> concerned it is proof of afterlife,  or whatever  you
> want to call it (obviously difficult to  describe
> here
> folks) cos it  exists after you die. i think  that
> this
> point is of some comfort  generally...but maybe i  am
> just too narcissistic: immortality or  nothing!
>   
> Mark:
> LOL
> 
> Gav:
> and a non-sequitur to  finish: when we talk of 'god'
> we
> need to remember  that we  are really often talking
> of
> 'gods'. even the bible has been  changed  in this
> regard: 'gods' replaced with 'god'. i think that  our
> evolution is  about consciousness, wedded to a
>  material
> body, evolving to a point where we  are gods, in
>  that
> we are fully conscious of who we are and the nature 
>  of
> reality. heaven on earth baby.
>  
> Mark: If DQ =  nothing, and if you are part of an
> evolutionary process  toward  
> DQ, then you are evolving toward nothing Gav.
> On the way, you  are a sq lense focusing DQ.
> You make me smile Gav.
> I feel warm  toward you.
> Dear Gav, thanks. :-)
>  Mark