[MD] psst, Squonk, Over here

[MarshaV]

Gene, Case & Mark,

I think Gene and Case have been posting something important.  I, too, 
think DQ is amoral.  Maybe for this reason, I am uncomfortable with 
the phrase "sweet spot".   I also believe that an understanding of 
the MOQ benefits from an understanding Buddhism and Taoism, and vice versa.

Marsha


At 03:21 AM 10/31/2006, you wrote:
>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
>moq_discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/