[MD] psst, Squonk, Over here

[Gene M]

I hope you don't feel like were picking on you, but I pretty much agree with
everything Case said, so talking with him probably wouldn't give me much. I
think our differences can shed a lot more light on things than two people
just saying yes to every statement.

> Gene:
>
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.


I rarely consider RQ and CQ anymore at all frankly, I almost forgot about
them until you brought them up here. I feel like they are ideas that served
a specific purpose, highlighting problems in SOM, and as a bridge to
Quality, and finally the MoQ. I feel that the final form of the MoQ benefits
from completely discarding the ideas, their work done. They are little more
than analogues of Subjective and Objectively slanted people. In the core
MoQ, of SQ and DQ, I don't think they have a lot to say. Just my personal
opinion.

I think there is a big problem in this forum of equating DQ and Quality
itself. I think DQ is amoral. DQ is not Good. It's not Bad either. DQ in my
head is just a Change. Anytime anything at all changes, that is DQ in
action, the Quality is served only in the effects on SQ after the fact.
Dynamic Quality can be degeneration or growth, destruction or amplification,
anything that alters SQ is DQ, and together they serve Quality in the end.

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?
>

I'm no Buddhist either, in fact I choose not to label myself in any way if I
can help it. However, although I fear I might be repeating Case against my
best intentions, I think you've missed a big point of Taoism and Buddhism if
you do not think they address change.

Many Many passages of the Tao Te Ching refer specifically to movement,
returning to the root, alluding to the fact that the only constant in the
world is Change.  Evolution is just a long series of changes, DQ affecting
SQ toward betterness, toward Quality. Each affecting the other, creating and
destroying each other. The delicate balance of which is Quality manifest.

-Gene