[MD] psst, Squonk, Over here

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Mark 30-10-06: Hello Gene.
Thanks for butting in. It's good when people butt in and say something  which 
adds to the thread.
 
Gene:
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.
 
Mark 30-10-06: Fair enough.

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.
 
Mark 30-10-06: This i am not sure about Gene. In ZMM, Romantic Quality and  
Classic Quality are viewed as aspects of Quality.
But in the MoQ, RQ may be seen as inorganic and biological patterns -  
emotional, while CQ may be seen as social and intellectual patterns - underlying  
form. Therefore, both CQ and RQ are sq.
I'm not sure where yin and yang come into this, but i have a feeling they  
too are static aspects of experience. The important thing to note here is that  
yin and yang, when suitably balanced or harmonised, produce a third thing. 
This  is a logical consequence of two complimentary aspects. And i feel the third 
 thing is close to DQ.
 
Gene:
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
 
Mark 30-10-06: Both the Tao and Buddhism have nothing to say  regarding 
evolution. There would be no need to suggest DQ if evolution where not  an aspect 
of our experience - we would do just as well with Quality.
In other words, in a static, non-evolving reality, Quality is  harmony.
In a Dynamic, evolving reality, the harmony we ascribe to Quality is going  
somewhere.
Once evolution is admitted, differentiation becomes more, not less  
pronounced: There ARE inorganic patterns devoid of biological quality, there ARE  
biological patterns devoid of social quality, etc.
I am not a Buddhist Gene, so i'm not tied to Buddhist teaching.
However, if the MoQ is a new form of Buddhism, then i may be a Buddhist  
after all?
 
Love,
Mark