[MD] The first cut.

[118]

Hi Andre,
Well, I agree with you, DQ is.  I also believe that of much more.  I
would state that a Tree simply is too.  Why try to look deeper when
the tree is there in front of you.  We have a tendency to slice and
dice everything up.  I would also say the sq simply is.  There is no
need to go any farther and confuse the issue.  sq is a reference term,
let's leave it at that.  This will certainly save us from all the
contortions.  There is no need to add anything to DQ, so why should
we?  Why try to imagine things that it does?  It does not do things,
it is simply a reference term.  To say that it does something is
giving it attributes that it cannot have.  Once we have accepted that
DQ simply is, we are free from the metaphysics associated with it!

I also agree that Quality comes first.  In fact, we should not even
say that, because Quality simply is.  It does not come before
anything.  Quality comes first and after, and there is nothing else!
We cannot say that Quality is distinct from something else.  We cannot
say that Quality acts on something else, for what is that something
else.  It would require a whole separate world that is distinct from
Quality.

So yes, I am with you that DQ simply is.  Why do people make such a
fuss about that and everything else.  We should let DQ be, and not try
to make more of it than that.  How often do you try to make more out
of the white page that is behind the words written on it?  Never, I
would say, (unless it gets a coffee stain on it, but then that is not
the white page anymore).  The split between sq and DQ is not possible
since it would give DQ a distinction it should not have.  By making it
distinct (from sq) we are stating things that "it is not", and in this
way we are defining it.  This of course would not make sense.  How do
you define the color of the wind?

Thanks Andre, I think you are right on this one.

Cheers,
Mark

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe to Dave and All:
>
> I image DQ as the description of indefinable evolutionary reality perceived
> emotionally.
>
> Andre:
> No Joe, DQ is not a 'description' of anything. DQ simply is. In the MOQ DQ
> is a reference term.
>
> Joe:
> Is there no variation to levels in the indefinable emotional perception of
> evolutionary existence?
>
> Andre:
> If there is, according to you, an 'indefinable emotional perception of
> evolutionary existence' how can there be any 'variation'? How can something
> undefined be variable?
>
> Further more, your phrase 'emotional perception' is strange to me (and I
> have said this before). Think about this phrasing carefully... . Despite
> what your assertions are; emotions are a biological response to quality and
> not quality itself. This is straightforward MOQ understanding.
> Emotions do not perceive directly, they respond and I even grant that they
> respond sometimes before perception. BUT they are not primary. There is
> Quality first.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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