[MD] First Division 2.0

[MarshaV]

Greetings David of the Chess Moves,

I have no reason to agree or disagree, claim you correct or incorrect, but I was I wondering if your are a Zen Buddhist?  


Marsha
 
 
 
On Feb 18, 2012, at 8:52 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> 
> It seems our discussion is covering everything related to the MOQ under the sun. But I guess in order for us to find coherence in our viewpoints this is necessary to bring out the assumptions behind what we think..
>> No forewarning needed. In fact I appreciate any correction for that
>> allows me to learn and grow. I am not bonded to how I view things,
>> nor to how anybody else presents things. I am often just a passive
>> observer and I let my brain do the hard work. If I agree with it,
>> then I allow this brain to continue. In fact I appreciate
>> disagreement for that allows a dynamic interplay into the discussion.
>> Agreement is good, but somewhat passive. With that said, I will
>> present some arguments in favor of my sq presentation that you kindly
>> responded to.
>> 
>> 
> 
> What is this attitude of non-attachment that you have?  What do you point towards when you hold such an attitude?  What is attachment?  
> 
> I think that an attachment is a static pattern. It is making a fixed thing out of nothing.  This is what static quality is.  When we act as if there is a static this or a static that, this is attachment. But this isn't how reality is ultimately… For reality isn't fixed like this.
> 
> 'Non-attachment' is DQ. Just as DQ is no thing.  To claim that you're 'above' the DQ sq split is a mistake.  It is a mistake because you are completely neglecting the power of the first division of the MOQ in the process.  And the power of this 'non-attached' perspective is incorporated into the first division as DQ. Surely you can see this?
> 
> 

snip...