[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Marsha]
If you put your heart on one side of a scale and a feather on the 
other side of the scale, would they be balanced?

[Arlo]
I don't think "balance" necessitates equal portions. That is balance 
may not be "50-DQ/50-SQ". And it is never "set". You jump. Then you 
land. Some days are for jumping, and some are for landing. So perhaps 
a feather's worth of SQ is all that's needed to find that harmonious 
balance with a heart's worth of DQ.

[Marsha]
I do think that sq is required, but I also think that life wants to 
maximize its freedom and move beyond. That may be sitting in the 
woods talking with the birds or drinking a brewski with your friends.

[Arlo]
Well, to the latter I'd only say that the presence of "brewskis" (my 
winter fav is Snow Goose, good stuff) requires static patterns. As 
does "talking". And this was my point. The "freedom" to go to a bar 
and drink a beer with your friends requires a heapload of SQ 
underscoring it, from social patterns in the production and 
distribution of beer, to the very language of the conversation, to 
the stability of a "town" wherein to find the bar. We may be blind to 
all the SQ that fosters our freedom, but without it we'd have no 
"freedom", only "chaos".

[Marsha]
In my mind the highest freedom would be non attachment to any of it.

[Arlo]
This is not "freedom" as I understand it, but chaos. Go ahead and 
break all your SQ attachments and see how much you are "free" to do. 
Painting? Right out, since even the creation of "paint" requires 
static processes. Having a brewski? Nosirree. "Non attachment to any 
of it" is unpatterned, non-linguistic, moment-to-moment life. (And 
that assumes that you are talking only about freeing yourself from 
static social or intellectual quality. Let's hope you don't mean 
freeing your body from static biological patterns! I assume you don't 
find those "boring"!)