[MD] American moral complex

[MarshaV]

At 06:51 AM 7/31/2007, you wrote:
>      [Marsha]
> > I interpret Lila saying that Life is what one
> > defines it to be.  And
> > defining it makes it static, kills it.
>
>
>       Where is static defined as killed?  When static
>quality isn't creative it becomes dead, and we can't
>avoid static quality, look at our hands, they are
>organic.  Without dq, the static levels die.  Without
>static latching then the levels collapse into chaos.
>Do you want this to collapse into chaos?  I thought
>the MOQ rid the totally mystic view and the totally
>logical positivist view.  Your taking a totally mystic
>view.  The MOQ is not just about dq, but sq, too.  No
>wonder the discussion is not developing into a
>dialogue.  Your trying to kill the dialogue.  Life is
>defined unto it's own.  I can't say what the organic
>level is, but I can come up with a good metaphor.
>This metaphor is on the intellectual level still.  The
>organic level is left untouched by my intellect.  Do
>you see this differently?
>
>woods,
>SA


SA,

I type.  That's inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.  I'm 
sure no one wants to hear about THAT.    The original question "Do we 
need problems to solve?  Do we need problems to spur a philosophical 
discussion?"   I offered curiosity as a reason.  That's my 
reason.  I'm interested in different perspectives of the world.   Of 
course there is sq in addition to DQ, but both are Quality.

I paint.  The title of this new painting is 'Seducing Thalo'.

I don't mean to be difficult, but I am taking in new material.  It 
requires a certain amount of vigilance and intimacy, not a public 
conveyance.  So I apologize and hope we can dialogue another time.

Marsha







Marsha