[MD] All the way down

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,


On Dec 18, 2010, at 2:19 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Andre, Marsha,
> 
> Mark:
> I will have to agree with Andre, that saying DQ is SQ is
> counterproductive.  

Marsha:
It is the way I know it: Quality(unpatterned/patterned).


> Mark:
> Yes, they are both descriptions within Quality, and the divide is
> an intellectual one, but that is what MoQ is all about.  

Marsha:
I find patterned experience to be a overlay onto the unpatterned.


> Mark:
> Saying that they are the same does not add to our creation of
> a meaningful metaphysics.  

Marsha:
My primary, meaningful metaphysics is Quality(unpatterned experience/
patterned experience.


> Mark:
> As such, DQ is SQ is a meaningless statement.  

Marsha:
It represents my experience of Quality.


> Mark:
> We have created two parts for a reason.  

Marsha:
Usefulness?  But that should not prevent from looking beyond 
apparent usefulness.  


> Mark:
> No need to say the distinction doesn't exist, we created it, so it does
> exist, in its most absolute form.  They Really exist.

Marsha:
The static patterns of value conventionally exist.  


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

Marsha:
We?  As individuals we participate, but static patterns of value depend 
on a multitude of conditions, and in turn participate as a condition for 
other patterns.



Marsha




> 
> 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.
>> 
>> 
> 



 
___