[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[David Harding]

Hi Andre,

> David to Andre:
> Right. But how can you even talk of DQ without referring to it? You can't do it.
>
> Andre:
> Well David, of course you can talk of DQ by referring to it but that does not mean you are defining it in any way, shape or form. I refer you to Anthony's and dmb's response.

I'm confused by this comment because you end up agreeing with me below
that even the word 'quality' is a definition of
some kind?  Us talking right now is us defining Dynamic Quality.  None
of this, none of any thing is Dynamic Quality. It's all static
quality. For Dynamic Quality isn't anything..

> David:
> From the perspective of sq, even the words Dynamic Quality are a sort of definition.
>
> Andre:
> I have just looked up 'word' is my (Oxford) dictionary. It suggests nine different meanings, none of which says that a word (automatically) defines something.

If you look up a word in a dictionary it will have a definition. The
word Dynamic has a definition as does the word Quality. Words are
making fixed static things out of the undefinable source of all
things. Words are ruining the ultimately undefined nature of reality.
But as you know thats not the end of the story. We cannot help but
define.  There's not a person alive who hasn't in some way or other
ruined this ultimate undefined nature of all things. So, says the MOQ,
let's get these definitions as best we can.

> I get what you are hinting at though David. It's the same thing Phaedrus grappled with in LILA:
> "By even using the term 'Quality' he had already violated the nothingness of mystic reality. The use of the term 'Quality' sets up a pile of questions of its own that have nothing to do with mystic reality and walks away leaving them unanswered. Even the name, 'Quality' was a kind of definition since it tended to associate mystic reality with certain fixed and limited understandings". (LILA pp110-1)

Indeed.

>
> My suggestion is that Dynamic Quality, as a MOQ referring term, is indeed intended to leaving 'a pile of questions of its own' UNANSWERED and to DISSOCIATE it from 'certain fixed and limited understandings'. I think, and agree with Anthony here, that both ZMM and LILA are treating DQ in that way. That is DQ/sq.

Yeah. I agree that the conclusion of ZMM was that Quality ought to be
left undefined and that this 'undefined quality' was given the name
'Dynamic Quality' in Lila.  But the reason why he gave it the new name
was so he could then delve into static quality definitions. He needed
to give Quality from ZMM the name Dynamic Quality so that he could put
aside the notion of 'not defining quality' and then delve into static
quality definitions. Lila was more of an acknowledgement that you
can't help but define the undefinable so let's get these definitions
as good as we can. That includes IMHO the acknowledgment that even the
terms
Dynamic Quality are a form of definition.

-David.