[MD] The SOL-ution

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

[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.
 
Mark: Yes! Yepiddy ding dang yes!
 
This is static quality
being excellent or as I've put it before, dq is  sq.
 
Mark: Gorgeous.

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.
 
 
Mark: I shall sleep well tonight.

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
 
Mark: Peace. Cat sleeps.