[MD] DQ/sq

118 ununoctiums at gmail.com
Sat Aug 13 18:20:31 PDT 2011 

Hi Marsha,
I am not trying to change your mind, just present mine.  When I stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon, I know I feel inspired.  There is nothing intellectual about it, but I do Know it.  Much of my daily life is that way, I have a sense of knowing, then I put it to Words (intellectual knowing) not the other way around.  I know DQ when I am in it, there is no point in shoving it up to the intellect unless I want to share it.

Mark

On Aug 13, 2011, at 9:39 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Hello Mark, 
> 
> I'm sticking with DQ as indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.  Experienced, but unknowable.  DQ is without differentiation, so no-thing to know and no one to know it.   Static quality (patterns) are knowable.    
>    
> Alan Watts was cool.  
> 
> The rest of your comments don't resonate with me, but as always I find your point-of-view interesting.   
> 
> 
> Marsha   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 13, 2011, at 11:16 AM, 118 wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marsha,
>> I don't quite understand your first paragraph, so I will reply with
>> thoughts on the second.  In my opinion, those adjectives with which
>> you define DQ are all related to sq.  DQ is known by your entire
>> being, that is: the body/brain, and, the mind or soul or Atman or
>> spirit (everything that is not physical, which is much more
>> encompassing than the physical).  You are referring to the "knowing"
>> that is done for the purposes of communication within the Social
>> Level.  Surely there are many things that you experience that cannot
>> be put into words.  Possibly most of your present experience.
>> 
>> In my opinion, Goodness starts at zero and grows to infinity.  There
>> is no Badness per se in this type of analysis.  We can also assign a
>> midpoint in Quality, one side being positive and one side being
>> negative, it all amounts to the same thing.  This midpoint is useful
>> for communication since it is easier to say Bad than "less good".  I
>> agree that this continuum is important to develop a language around
>> perhaps with firmer meaning.  If we assume that everything is Quality,
>> then our whole perspective on life changes, we simply endeavor for
>> higher Quality rather than trying to avoid a negative apparition.
>> 
>> It's All Good,
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:43 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mark,
>>> 
>>> I am removing the 'Thinking:' from the subject line because it referenced a previous line of thought and my changing a word in the definition of sq from 'interonnected' to 'conditionally co-dependent'.   It did not signify a relationship between 'thinking' and my definitions of either DQ or sq.
>>> 
>>> I'm sticking with DQ being indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.  DQ is without differentiation, so by what can it possibly be known?  What can be known is static quality (patterns) whether inside or outside of "intellect".
>>> 
>>> From one point-of-view static patterns are all Goodness, from another they are a mixed bag.  Either way I wouldn't want to be without them, though I think humanity could be helped by having them better understood.
>>> 
>>> Marsha
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 13, 2011, at 2:07 AM, 118 wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>> For me it is much simpler.
>>>> 
>>>> SQ is the "patterns" that we form with our brains.  It provides a
>>>> meaningful way for us to intellectually interact with that outside of
>>>> each of us.
>>>> 
>>>> DQ is not intellectually "knowable" since that makes it sq.  But it is
>>>> known by all of us outside of the intellect (most of what we go though
>>>> is outside of thought, only a little bit is converted to sq).  Again,
>>>> dividing DQ relegates it to sq, but it is continuously being divided
>>>> by us outside of the intellect, for that is how we survive, the brain
>>>> comes afterward to justify how we survive.  And yes, it is definable,
>>>> that is all that we do in this forum, create circular tautologies: DQ
>>>> is that which forms sq; DQ is reality; DQ is dynamic; DQ is that which
>>>> is Quality but not sq; DQ creates the appearance that sq is
>>>> ever-changing, conditionally codependent and impermanent, etc.  DQ
>>>> give the appearance of predictablility in sq when subjected to the
>>>> patterns created by the intellect.  That is just circular referencing.
>>>> 
>>>> In the end, all sq that we discuss is created by man, it does not
>>>> exist outside of our minds.  It is like making constellations out of
>>>> the stars.  Now those constellations are very real for us until we
>>>> realize that we are just making them up.  This is no different from
>>>> everything else.  This of course does not minimize sq, in fact it
>>>> makes it Grand, Special, and the Greatest attribute of Man.  It
>>>> results in music, poetry, and, yes, Metaphysics.  It is the complex
>>>> glue that binds us humans together as a single organism.  What more
>>>> can we ask for?  All else is simply delusion.
>>>> 
>>>> If we look for DQ we loose it, a finger cannot point to itself, a
>>>> motorcycle cannot ride itself.  If we do not look for DQ we know that
>>>> it is there.
>>>> 
>>>> We create SQ, DQ creates us, both together form Quality.
>>>> 
>>>> At least it is simple for me.  I like simple for a simple brain.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Mark
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:54 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> For me…
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dynamic Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Static patterns of value are processes: ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent.   (Not independent objects, subjects or things-in-themselves.)  Ever-changing processes that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 7, 2011, at 8:37 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> H Mark,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I suppose I am picking nits in a way that matters to no one else, but I need to drop both causality and connectedness which seem both to require some intrinsic nature.  At the moment I like better 'conditionally co-dependent'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2011, at 12:15 PM, MarshaV wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Simply causal?  I still could wonder how anything that lacks intrinsic nature could possibly causally connect?  What kind of connection would that be?   MMK - Chapter One kind of question...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2011, at 11:47 AM, 118 wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This is simply a causal connection.  As such it goes from undifferentiated (Quality) to highly differentiated (language).  Please note that language results in perceived Quality.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 2011, at 1:21 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Of course, I could wonder how anything that lacks intrinsic nature could possibly connect?  What kind of connection would that be?  (I can hear my mother's words:  "Marsha, you think too much!")   Undifferentiated, and non-rational, and free from assimilation, discrimination, analysis and synthesis?   Or seeing without anything seen?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Boggles the thinking mind...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:56 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Interconnected?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2011, at 3:52 PM, 118 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to make this, understandable.  Language results from thinking, thinking results from awareness, awareness results from dualism, dualism results from quality, quality results from Quality, Quality results from language.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ___
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ___
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list