[MD] Contradiction and incoherence

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,


On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:20 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> I understand that one should not solidify the distinction between sq and DQ. I am not talking about static quality until the end of time, in fact I am arguing against such a thing.  What I am suggesting is that the distinction between sq and DQ is a useful analogy for which to come to understanding.  

It is an useful analogy.  It's all analogy, all the way down, or turtles all the way down.


> That is the reason the split is presented.  I believe you are suggesting the same thing.  For without first creating the distinction, we cannot say they are the same thing.
> 
> We can devise the universe into matter and energy and then explain that they are the same thing.  It is this form of metaphysical split and reunification that brings understanding.  I think we agree there.  This is why I asked you to explain why you use your "not other" statement.  Release from your "endless cycle" first requires understanding what that endless cycle is.  This is what MoQ presents.
> 
> Do you think that the metaphysical distinction between sq and DQ can bring about enlightenment?

I don't know, a mirage is distinctive.  What do you take the distinction to be based upon?


>  If so, then we should start there.  I do understand why you wish to acknowledge that the split is artificial and nonexistent, and I have said that before.  But to make this statement you must first create the distinction.  
> 
> If the concept of God did not exist, there would be no atheists.  If there were no distinction between DQ and sq, MoQ would not exist as it does.  

Do you mean the conceptual explanation or Value?  What does the MoQ represent for you?


> This is why I asked if you had a different way for presenting Quality, which starts with the premise that DQ and sq cannot be distinguished.  It is an honest question.

I think the mirage analogy works well.  


Marsha 


> 
> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
> Mark
> 
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 8:17 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> Yes, you can talk about static patterns until the end of time, but the idea is to understand (deeply) "how things really are", and "how they aren't"; to become disentangled from what keeps humans  thinking cyclical static patterns are, or have, an unchanging, independent, self-subsistence and the misguided activities motivated by such attachments to self and objects.  That is to move towards enlightenment.  Both RMP and Nagarjuna share the "perception that the indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static)".  For me, to study the MoQ is to explore and recognize the valuing process as one of interconnection and dependent arising and how cyclic static patterns have evolved; how they arise, persist and cease, both synchronically and diachronically, and what they value.  
>> 
>> But this is what interests me.  I do not expect that you will necessarily have the same interests as me, nor am I insisting you think like me.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha 
>> 
>> 
>>