[MD] psst, Squonk, Over here

[Gene M]

Sorry to bust in on your conversation here, it's really interesting! This
section just caught my mind and I wanted to butt in.

[Mark 26b-10-06]
> Distinctions are sq. Yin and Yang are sq.
>
> [Case]
> I could actually get on board with that as long as DQ and SQ are sq too.
>
> [Mark 26b-10-06]
> This is because i tend to view DQ and Quality as the same thing.
>
> [Case]
> This I don't get at all. This just seems to be throwing Quality out of the
> MoQ. I really don't see how this works in fact if all you have in the MoQ
> is
> DQ and SQ, it seems very dualistic.
>

I think you guys are basically saying the same thing, but maybe that's just
my interpretation. I, like Case, tend to tie the MoQ and the Tao together. I
think of it this way:
The Tao, the Path, The Way, the un-nameable, ethereal Unknown is Quality.
Quality is just another word for the thing which we call Tao.
SQ and DQ are yin and yang, constantly flowing from one to another, shifting
back and force between the two, combined, intertwined, yet distinct. Both
together is what makes Quality.
As for the levels of SQ, I tend to think of Buddhism for these. The 4 levels
are like a Tomoe with 4 flames. Similar to the yin-yang, they are distinct
elements, intertwined, that move into each other constantly.
Which brings me every time to the Middle Path. The idea that all things are
everything, yet nothing. We are always trying to say This thing is Static!
or This is Dynamic! and This is only social quality! Which of course is
nonsense. Any thing is Always a combination of both Sq and Dq, and any
amount of the levels could be involved. None of it is any One Thing, that's
only ever part of the story.

Hmm, I actually intended to keep this pretty short, so I'll stop here, but I
think I'll ruminate on this further.

Great conversation you two!

-Gene