[MD] The SOL-ution

[Heather Perella]

     [Mark]
> 1. The One.
> 2. Unity (this is my sq coherence notion, which may 
> be interestingly a 
> subset of the following if DQ = Quality):
> 3. Quality.
> However, note that sq IS a subset of Unity when
> Coherence is introduced,  
> because sq-sq relationships may be unified.


     What I think your saying is when static quality
is coherent, then it is not divided into subject and
objects - key word divided.  This is static quality
being excellent or as I've put it before, dq is sq. 
Dq is sq only if sq has no-ego, is not stuck with any
particular aspect of itself, thus, dq shines, in other
words, dharmakaya light as it all comes together and
falls into place (pick your metaphor) - bullseye!  dq
focused.
     You also mentioned how Pirsig says subjects and
objects fit into the MoQ, which I can understand, but
only as you mentioned, when subject and object is
understood in the MoQ version.  Thus, S and O if not
understood in this different light will still be the
same S and O, as I believe Laird advocated against. 
Laird mentioned how S and O can be used, but a toned
down version.  I agreed and see the toned down version
to be a S and O without a separation.  It's easier to
say static quality.  For sq is any static pattern,
thus, S and O are just leaves and clay.  S and O are
not the cave wall where all comes to a stop.  S and O
as any static pattern have no bottom, have no essence,
no ego, no boundaries, and merge with each other
eventually and during this one-long-now.  They are
helpful, scientific, beautiful colors, and creeks,
yet, undifferentiated amidst this meta-.

thanks.


quiet birds sing,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/