[MD] Marsha is a mystic.

[David Harding]

Hi Marsha and all,

Aha the real Marsha!

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Marsha is a mystic. Her ode to mysticism(DQ) below is a fundamental
part of the MOQ. Life, as with the MOQ, is all about perspective.
Ultimately "There is no need to add anything to DQ, so why should we?
Why try to imagine things that it does? ". I couldn't put it better
myself.

But there is another perspective that Marsha neglects. I would dare to
say she doesn't like it one bit.. And who would? Its static quality.
It doesn't represent Vibrance and newness. It is old and complex. It
represents pain and suffering and death.  Who would like that? Why
should our worldview have such a horrible concept?

But I would argue that we can't avoid this pain and oldness and
suffering. To pretend otherwise is to live a false life.

"Purity identified ceased to be purity." -RMP Lila

Not Marsha, not me not even the best Mystics there are - The Zen
Buddhists - can escape this fact. Marsha is polluting the world with
her static ideas just like everyone else.

Marsha claims to accept that static patterns exist but she does so
only in so far as it "is a reference term.. leave it at that." In
other words: "Sq simply represents DQ. End of discussion."

I don't disagree with you Marsha. Ultimately sq does 'represent' DQ.
But my point is we cannot leave it at that.  There isn't a person on
this planet or thing in existence which has 'left it at that'.  sq,
being a fixed thing, can never capture DQ. It never gets it right. So
sq goes on and on and on. All pollution every last bit of it. Wouldn't
it be great if we didn't pollute? No, then there would be no life.

-David


On 22/01/2012, at 6:47 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> 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