[MD] All the way down

[118]

Hi Andre, Marsha,

I will have to agree with Andre, that saying DQ is SQ is
counterproductive.  Yes, they are both descriptions within Quality,
and the divide is an intellectual one, but that is what MoQ is all
about.  Saying that they are the same does not add to our creation of
a meaningful metaphysics.  As such, DQ is SQ is a meaningless
statement.  We have created two parts for a reason.  No need to say
the distinction doesn't exist, we created it, so it does exist, in its
most absolute form.  They Really exist.

Having said that, it is always useful to acknowledge that we are the
creators, so that we do not get stuck in some Truth.

Mark

On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Andre Broersen
<andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Marsha responding to Tim by referring to Marsha and dmb's interaction
> (phew!):
>
> DQ is sq, sq is DQ.  Most of us know this, but it sounds like
> Matt and Steve do not care to focus on a separate DQ experience.
>
> Andre:
> To keep on confusing, or rather suggesting that 'DQ is sq' is completely
> uprooting any kind of meaningful conversation Marsha, and certainly when
> talking about a static intellectual pattern of value called 'MOQ'.
>
> By substituting one for the other you make talking about metaphysics
> impossible, you are making talk of 'history' impossible, you are making talk
> of 'evolution' meaningless. It reminds me of the episode where Phaedrus sat
> in class in Benares and asked the professor if Hiroshima had actually
> happened...if it was real?
>
> There comes a time when you have to 'own up'. There IS a difference between
> static and Dynamic. Yes, they are related. They are related in their
> interdependency, their dependent-arising but that does not mean they are
> interchangeable. To confuse this relationship is to make anything
> conventionally meaningful, meaningless. Is that what you want? Reduce all to
> statements of 'relativity' to apply to all static patterns?
>
> 'Nothing is real, and nothing to get hum about'
>
> This inevitably leads to nihilism Marsha. You may feel that way in your own
> life but here we are talking about a metaphysics. You make it sound like it
> is a different process to you. I get the feeling that you have no idea about
> this. In a very important way MOQ is biography. Don't generalize your own
> biography to stand for the one we are discussing. Many here on this discuss
> do that... and find fault with Mr. Pirsig.
>
> Think again. Do not confuse Pirsig's MOQ with your own...He is a very smart
> and wise man. Sometimes wise men know us better than we think we know
> ourselves, and sometimes wise men are smarter than we think ourselves to be.
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>