[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[118]

Hi David,



Well, we disagree.  That is a good thing since maybe something will come
out of this discussion.  I try to present what I am aware of in the most
readable manner possible, but this too falls short.

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:21 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi Mark,

Quality from ZMM becomes DQ in Lila.   Quality is left undefined in ZMM,
and turned into the non-concept of DQ in Lila.  You do not like the
distinction between DQ and sq.  You conflate these two very different
qualities - often.  This is ugly mysticism, metaphysics and ugly generally…
 There is a beauty in the MOQ's first division if you'd care to see it..



Mark:  I am fully on board with the first division, I simply see it in a
different way from you.  I do not coflate them one bit.  It is your
interpretation of what I write that is conflationary.  Once you realize
that, maybe my writings will have more meaning for you.  I will try below.


David:

Also, had you read any mysticism before you read Lila?  Do you like Zen
Buddhism? What appears to attract you to the MOQ is DQ.  However, DQ cannot
be found by the intellect.  In fact, the intellect will take you *away*
from Dynamic Quality not toward it.  The MOQ is an intellectual pattern of
value.  If you like DQ so much, I point you towards Zen Buddhism and not an
intellectual thing called the MOQ.



Mark:  Yes, and yes.  I was attracted to mysticism at an early age.



The intellect is a translation system.  It is what converts DQ to SQ and is
also DQ.  The act of creating thoughts is DQ, that is why such a process is
dynamic, and it cannot be pointed to with SQ.  I am talking about that
interface between DQ and sq.  This "first division" as you say.  Perhaps
you have a better interpretation of this interface between DQ and SQ.  If
so, I would like to hear it.


> Mark:  I fully agree here.  I am hear to learn, not to profess.  Through a
> formulation of what I present, I learn how to bring DQ into the realm of
> SQ.  I appreciate your indulgence.

David:

What you seek is to have DQ for yourself by capturing it in sq.  Pretend
otherwise as you might, this is what you do.  Embrace the fact that by your
mere existence you are ruining the ultimately undefined nature of the
universe.



Mark:  No that is not what I seek, that is what you want me to seek.  DQ
cannot be captured in SQ, that is impossible.  It is you who are capturing
DQ in sq, by relegating everything to SQ.  What do you mean by the
ultimately nature of the universe.  Are are we not part of this universe?
Is this universe separate from us in some magical way?"  We ARE the nature
of the universe as is everything.  Our ability to define and exchange ideas
is part of the nature of the universe.  Get out of the cage which separates
you from reality!  You are the one creating it.


> Mark: This is a false use of the biological level.  All that you are
saying
> is that sounds are made by biology.  Biology is not the biological level.
> Biology is a manifestation of the biological level.  The two are very
> different things.  For example (using another level as analogy), a society
> is not the social level.  A society comes about as a function of the
social
> level.  The levels cannot be pointed to, all we can point to are the
> results of these levels.  You seem to be confusing SQ for DQ.  What we see
> as animals are an SQ representation of the biological level (DQ).

David:

The biological level isn't DQ.  It is sq.  Your conflation of DQ and sq
here shows how your bad mysticism muddies the clear distinction between the
two and thus cannot point to either.

Mark: No, you are speaking of the definition of the biological level, not
the biological level itself.  The biological level cannot be defined since
we live in the social/intellectual level when we are forming definitions.
I am not conflating DQ and sq, you are.  The biological level gives us the
ability to describe the biological level in intellectual format.  But this
description is not the biological level, it is a projection from out
intellect.



> Mark:  I believe that here we have a fundamental difference in opinion
> concerning Quality.  (No, not DQ, Quality, remember that concept?)
> Metaphysics is an expression of value.  What metaphysics is expressing in
> words, is what comes before those words.

David:

I've never read a thing which I disagreed with more on MD. Metaphysics is
sq intellectual values.  It is very clearly stated that these are.



Mark:  What is written is sq, of course.  But where does metaphysics come
from?  What are its roots?  The sun (DQ) expresses sunshine; the sunshine
is not the sun.  You are claiming that such light is the sun.  Read a
little Plato for a change.  Read the cave metaphor.  I dare say that Plato
was just a little bit more intelligent than we.



When you say "clearly stated" you are using SQ to support the idea of SQ.
Sorry, this cannot be done.  SQ cannot be defined either.   SQ is
definitions, or patterns that we form.  These patterns are a product of our
intellect which is a converter, not sq.  Again, I will ask you to give me
the relationship between DQ and sq so that I can understand where you are
coming from.


> Mark:

>Metaphysics is like a painting of
> a landscape.  But it is not the landscape!  Any metaphysics is based on
> something which brings it forth.  It cannot stand on its own, because it
is
> a description of something.  That Something is required before it can be
> described.  Metaphysics is not a degenerate activity, any more than a
> painting is degenerate.  We do not go around assuming that a painting is
> actually the real landscape, and we don't go around believing that a
> metaphysics is actually the nature of being.  This is what MOQ teaches.

David:

I wholeheartedly disagree.  This is the point of my original post.  You
conflate DQ with sq.. The words of a metaphysics can describe different
things.   Words can describe the biological and inorganic values of a
landscape, or the inorganic painting can represent the biological and
inorganic values of a landscape.   So words don't just point to DQ.   The
MOQ points to a whole lot more than DQ, and in fact it takes us away from
DQ by naming it…   This is the mystical degeneracy of the intellect.



Mark: No, I do not conflate DQ with sq, you do.  Yes, words are used for
descriptions.  When I describe a zebra, do you think that description IS
the zebra.  If so, you are so stuck in sq that you need some help here.  You
need to get some perspective here.



Yes, MOQ points to more than DQ, it also points to sq, because it is the
metaphysics of Quality, not the metaphysics of dynamic quality.



Words result from DQ.  Does that make any more sense to you?  Tell me,
where do words come from?  Why do we use words?


>Mark:
> Last century (and this) was characterized by the dominance of words, which
> are thought to be the real thing they are describing.  As Pirsig laments
at
> the end of ZAMM, the world had become hollow, without Quality.  When you
> say that metaphysics can stand on its own, you are making metaphysics
> hollow.  It is only a representation.  Pirsig warns that it is degenerate
> as soon as the words replace that which they describe.  However, knowing
> this, when we use words we are not using them in a degenerate manner.  We
> are using them for communication of that which lies before them.  We use
> money to represent something of value, but we do not confuse money for
that
> thing.  Money does not stand on its own either, it is just pieces of
paper.
> It is what that money represents that is important.

David:
Words by their nature are fixed.  To these fixed words metaphysical
meanings are attached.



Mark: Yes, and so what?



David (blessing us with a psalm):
" The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with
fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to
whose birth no thought has been given."



Yes, have you ever heard something called rhetoric?  You are acting like
this is some cardinal rule.  You say" "This is what Pirsig says, and by God
he better stick by it!"  Hate to tell you this Pal, but if you said this to
Pirsig, he would disavow you in a heartbeat.



Pirsig is trying to explain what he is aware of.  That is, that which
exists before words.  He rhetorically uses the term "pollution" to make a
point.  We are all aware of this, unless we are stuck in SQ, and think that
words stand on their own.  Words are labels.  They label something.  Any
idea what that something is?


>>David: "To the intellect the process of defining Quality has a compulsive
quality
>> of its own. It produces a certain excitement even though it leaves a
>> hangover afterward, like too many cigarettes, or a party that has lasted
>> too long. Or Lila last night. It isn't anything of lasting beauty; no joy
>> forever. What would you call it? Degeneracy, he guessed. Writing a
>> metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity."
-Lila
>>
>Mark:
> David, I have to warn you that I see no value in quoting scripture.  In
> order to use this paragraph, you need to put it into context.  The context
> is the whole book.  Therefore in order to use this quote you need to
> include the whole book.  Just because it has all the words that you need,
> does not make it self sufficient.  I would appreciate it if you stopped
> throwing a bible at me as if it means something.  I ask the same thing of
> Christians.  The idea that their opinion is true, because they found it
> written in the Good Book, is complete nonsense and you know it.  I could
> find passages in Lila to support anything I wanted, such as "Quality
states
> that capitalism is better than socialism".  These are just examples of a
> bigger picture.  Please use your own words, and do not resort to some kind
> of authority as if it make you right.  Such a thing is not very
> intellectual and does not convince anyone that you understood a
> metaphysical description of Quality.

David:

Okay Mark - dslkfjakldsflk;adjsfjk;ahsdflk;hjdsa;klfjadslk;fgjkl;dsgj; -
understand? Didn't think so. If we do not use conventions and rules
everything becomes chaotic and meaningless.   We need static quality to
create a fixed situation whereby we can communicate and build quality. On
this forum - the static quality which we build quality on is RMP's two
books - ZMM and Lila.   If we cannot discuss the content of those two books
then we might as well be talking gibberish because we're never going to
have any static quality we can build upon.  This is the beauty of static
quality.  It creates a situation where DQ can flourish.



Mark:  What you are doing is much more than convention, you are reciting at
an altar.  I am using English, so I am using a convention.  I use words in
their correct meaning, which is convention.  I agree with MOQ, that is
convention.  You are the one creating anarchy, by taking this SQ stuff to
some extreme.  Most of your existence is in the form of DQ.  Most of it you
are not even aware of.  Think about that.



Yes, we create static quality based on Pirsig's books, so what?  Why do you
feel the need to justify what you say with a quote?  Is that supposed to
mean that you understood the book, or that you just googled the words?  Of
course we discuss the content of these books.  That is what I do.  Please
explain what you mean by DQ flourishing.   Do we have the power to make DQ
flourish?  This is an interesting concept.  I would like to hear more about
this.


>> David: The MOQ does not say we should look to the 'source of the
shadows'(DQ).
>> In fact, it's created so that we can look at the shadows(sq).  The first
>> division of the MOQ is between DQ and sq.  This division has been created
>> so we can intellectually put aside all mystical concerns and focus on the
>> intellectual value of the static patterns themselves.   The MOQ is
>> degeneracy.   Mystic degeneracy.  Need I repost another Pirsig quote
which
>> says as much?
>>
>
> Mark:  Are you kidding me?!!  Have you heard of something called Quality?
> Have you heard of something called Value?  Have you heard about something
> called Morality?  These are the things that cast the shaddows.  MOQ is
full
> of these things.  Stop being so literal, and try to understand what MOQ is
> trying to teach.  You are stuck in words, MOQ gives you a way out.

David:

Quality becomes DQ in Lila.  DQ is the source of the shadows. If you want
to discuss DQ on a philosophical forum then these thoughts will take you
away from DQ not toward it:



Mark: OK, Quality becomes DQ.  So then why call it the metaphysics of
Quality, smarty pants?



DQ can be considered the source of shadows, while Quality is both the
source and the shadow.  Remember that DQ and sq are manner in which to
divide Quality.  Both together they become Quality.  Or perhaps you do not
believe in the "first division".



The more I think about some things, the closer I get to DQ.  I am simply
speaking from experience, not theoretically as you seem to be doing.  If
you think that you can categorically tell me that I am wrong, then you are
a God indeed.



What experience do you base your MOQ on?  Inquiring minds want to know.



David professing from the mountain tops:
"Thought is not a path to reality. It sets obstacles in that path because
when you try to use thought to approach something that is prior to thought
your thinking does not carry you toward that something. It carries you away
from it. To define something is to subordinate it to a tangle of
intellectual relationships. And when you do that you destroy real
understanding." - Lila



Mark: Thanks for providing a quote in my favor!  At least you are beginning
to understand where I am coming from.



However, I am interested in how you interpret "reality" in the statement
above, perhaps you think it means something other than I do.



What is prior to thought creates thought.  The sun cannot shine on itself.
One cannot find anything in that way.  What we do is create, not approach
something.  When one builds a house, one is not "approaching something".
To think that one is approaching something is completely mad.  When I speak
of Fear, do I destroy fear?  I don't think so, in fact I make it worse.



What do you think Pirsig means by "real understanding"?  I am curious how
you interpret this out of context.



You do not have to answer if it makes you uncomfortable.  You can alway
just quote something to stay on the safe side since then you cannot claim
responsibility for your own thinking.


David:

The MOQ does not give you a way out.  By definition the MOQ is intellectual
POV which does not take you towards DQ - it points you away from it.



Sorry, but you are wrong.  Do you think that Pirsig exists in SQ only?


> Mark:

>The MOQ is not degeneracy, it is a description.  Is the description of a
> mountain considered to be degenerate?  Put aside all mystical concerns?

David
The MOQ is *only* mystically degenerate.  From a static quality standpoint
it is very valuable.  It is one of the best ideas ever created IMHO.  A
description of a mountain is mystically degenerate yet intellectually
valuable.   These two things - intellectual and mystical are in opposition..



Mark: No, the intellectual is derived from the mystical.  One can approach
it by ignoring the intellectual, which wraps up the mystical such that you
cannot see it.  The mystical is like a spider that is hiding in the
elaborate web it has spun.  They are not two opposing forces.



David, singing in the choir:
"To the intellect the process of defining Quality has a compulsive quality
of its own. It produces a certain excitement even though it leaves a
hangover afterward, like too many cigarettes, or a party that has lasted
too long. Or Lila last night. It isn't anything of lasting beauty; no joy
forever. What would you call it? Degeneracy, he guessed. Writing a
metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity."



Mark: What is with these verses dude?  Can't you think for yourself?  Are
singing in a choir?  Did you bring those cannisters with smoke to spread
about while you speak in tongues?



Definitions only create a cage if you let them.  That is what Pirsig is
saying.  You on the other hand are all for creating these cages by giving
power to definitions.  Definitions are just words.  Words do not stand on
their own since they require a reader to bring them to life.  Bringing
words to life is DQ.  What results from this birth is SQ.


> Mark: Are you serious?  The MOQ leads to mysticism.  Tell me David, what
are you
> hoping to get out of MOQ.  How do you plan to use it?  It is more than
just
> a picture, it is a picture OF something.  That something is Quality.  Let
> us not forget Quality.

David:

The MOQ leads us *away* from mysticism.  It is an idea.  Ideas capture
reality into fixed metaphysical meanings.  DQ is not



Mark: They only capture reality into fixed meanings if you let them.  I
think you are smarter than that.  If I describe the Grand Canyon to you, do
you think I have captured the Grand Canyon?  This is effectively what you
are saying.


> Mark:  No, sorry but you are really on the wrong path here in terms of
what
> MOQ is for.

David:

It is you who is 'on the wrong path'.  I have no troubles with you valuing
mysticism.   I value mysticism as well.  What I do have troubles with is
your conflation of sq with DQ.  These two things could not be more
different and go in very different directions..



Mark: No, you are conflating sq with DQ by making sq everything.  Is pride
SQ?  If so, can you point to pride?  Of course you can't you can only point
to the result of pride.


David:

Now who's the religious fanatic..   This is what I meant.. Your fearing
that I am a religious fanatic simply meant that you fear that in others
that which you fear most in yourself.  Thus, I was right to point out that
you would likely be fanatical about religion (and especially fanatical
about not being mystically degenerate when discussing the MOQ)..  Purity



Mark: Whatever.  I can see you really believe in this psychology stuff.
Pirsig is disappointed in you.  What you say will only mean something to
somebody who has come under the spell of psychology.  Have fun with that.
Read about yourself in books.  Then you will really be SQ.



Are you fanatical about MOQ?  Or is it just an intellectual exercise for
you to  pass the time? Is it purely objective, or is there some of the
subjective in it for you?  You act like you are pointing at a chalk board,
pointing out the rules of Quality.  Sorry, this is impossible.


> Mark:  Well, we can go round and round here.  All I can say is a painting
> is not the landscape, an idol is not a god, a menu is not a meal, money is
> not a car, the front end of a train is not DQ, static quality is not
> dynamic Quality.  We can agree to disagree here.



David:

All you have said is that static quality exists.   A painting represents
the static biological and inorganic quality of a landscape, an idol
represents the static quality of a (cultural) god, a menu represents the
biological quality of a meal, money can represent the sq of a car to be
purchased, front end of the train can represent *statically* - DQ.  I agree
- static quality is not Dynamic Quality.



Mark: Amen, and thank you.  I am glad you used the term "represents".  SQ
represents DQ.


David:

I don't agree to disagree.  This is a Philosophical forum created for the
purpose of discussing philosophical disagreements.

Mark:  Heh, heh, OK then.  I was giving you a way out...





David:

You conflate DQ with sq and this results in metaphysical ugliness.   I
think there is a better, more beautiful, understanding of the MOQ.



Mark: Are you saying that an understanding of MOQ is not static?  If so,
then I fully agree with you.  An understanding of MOQ is dynamic, since it
is governed by DQ.  Unless you think there is some way to make
understanding static.  Paint me a picture of understanding.


>>David: Would someone fearful of definitions write a Metaphysics which is
just
>> about the largest thing you can define?  Pirsig literally embraces the
>> degeneracy of the intellect at the start of Lila and proceeds to be a
>> mystic degenerate by defining the MOQ.  Pirsig says that the MOQ is an
>> encapsulation of Dynamic Quality!   When you say Quality are you
referring
>> to Dynamic Quality or are you conflating the two like a bad mystic?
>>
>
> Yes, of course he would be, because people would then try to pin whatever
> words Pisig uses and demonstrate that there is a flaw in there somewhere.
> This is why he states that any metaphysics is degenerate, to make the
> point that the metaphysics is not the real thing, but just a description.
> There are thousands of descriptions that Pirsig could have use that would
> have worked.  The literature is full of these.  Since descriptions of the
> same thing are
>  available, we can compare MOQ to other forms of thought.
>
> What you are saying, is that MOQ should be renamed to MODQ.  Pirsig does
> not bring in dynamic quality until his second book.  MOQ started with
ZAMM.
> ZAMM is the spiritual that started the whole thing.  Besides,
> MOQ is a description, not an encapsulation.  Let us not fantasize cages
> where there are none.
>

David:

Pretending that the cage doesn't exist does not make it so..



Mark:  Here is the deal.  You are creating a cage by claiming that words
relegate what they are describing to writings on a page.  I am providing
you a key to get out of this cage, by telling you that words are just
descriptions of something and not the thing in itself.



By way of example:  Light is described as either waves or particles.  Do
you really think that light is a wave or a particle?  Of course it isn't,
that is just a description for it!  Light is neither waves or particles.
This form of description falls out of the math.  The math did not create
light.


> Mark:  I am sorry that you feel this way about MOQ.  Well, have fun being
a
> degenerate then.  I see it as an opportunity to reveal a better way of
> looking at reality.

David:

If you think that you can find a quote in Lila that says just about
anything, then prove it by finding a quote which contradicts this….

"But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless, doctrinaire
avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. That's the
degeneracy fanatics are made of. Purity, identified, ceases to be purity.
Objections to pollution are a form of pollution. The only person who
doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical
meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no
thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something
less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics
is a part of life."



Mark: I don’t need to, I agree with this.  Degeneracy results when one
thinks that a definition is more than a definition.  Degeneracy results
when one allows words to replace what they were created for.  You are the
one who disagrees with this quote, buddy.



David:

There is an important distinction Mark, between what is mystical and what
is metaphysical.   One is before all definitions and is destroyed by them,
the other is nothing but definitions.

I'd have no disagreement with what you wrote above if you simply exchanged
metaphysical with mystical.



Mark:  The metaphysical is a musing on the mystical.  It is a song, not
some diesel engine.


David:

 From an intellectual standpoint - mysticism is a point of view.
 Mystically speaking mysticism isn't anything - not mysticism not zen not
anything.  But this is a philosophical forum where we speak intellectually.
 As I said, if you would like to speak mysticism, which I have no troubles
with, then please do so at your nearest Zen centre.. Not on a philosophical
discussion board.



Mark:  OK.  Have I spoken mysticism to date?  I have no idea what you are
talking about.

David: Rather than a religious fanatic - have you heard of the value of
textual references in academia?  If one makes a claim about the MOQ, the
only place the MOQ has been 'officially' espoused is in Lila and built from
the foundations of ZMM.  Everyone on here claims to understand the MOQ as
espoused by Pirsig in those two books.  If you do not make such a claim
then that is rather unusual as it would be against the rules of the MD.



Mark:  I hate to break it to you, but MOQ has been espoused for at least
5,000 years and we do not have writings from before that.  Do you think
what MOQ claims is something new?  You need to get more rounded with your
reading.

>
> By the way, what do you mean by "the mystical nature of the universe".
> What on God's green earth is that?  Please, tell me more about this
nature.

It's interesting that you accuse me of religious fanaticism when you
mention God or Jesus so regularly…



Mark:  Good answer… Mine are examples, yours are actions.  It is the way in
which you write that I am referring to, not to the writing itself.  Comprende
amigo, or does this confuse SQ for you?

David:
I can tell you nothing about the ultimately undefined mystical nature of
the universe.  For it is before all words.  It is that very thing which you
try and capture by pretending that you don't capture it when you discuss
the MOQ.



Mark:  Come on, you can use words; you are not going to destroy mysticism
by talking about it.  You are so afraid of SQ.  What you fail to realize is
that we create SQ.  How can you be afraid of it?  We control it!

> Mark: Well, here you are wrong again.  Riding a horse only becomes static
> quality when we think about it and turn it into such.  Try to imagine
> riding a horse without thinking.  Yes, the description of it is static
> quality, but the description is not that riding itself.

David:

Is the activity of riding a horse a thought? No. It's a good idea to think
that when we ride a horse we are actually riding a horse and not thinking
about it.

Therefore, the thought of riding a horse represents the *static quality* of
the activity of riding a horse.



Mark: Yes, the thought is static quality, but what creates that
thought?  Static
quality cannot create itself.  It is a dead end product, that is why it is
called static (Remember?).  We create static quality because we are not
static.

David:

Books about the French Revolution contain words which intellectually
represent the *static quality* of the French Revolution which happened over
two hundred years ago.



Mark: Yes, exactly!  They are not the French Revolution, they are
representations.  Words about mysticism are not mysticism, they are
representations.  Don’t allow yourself to be caged by them!

David:
I am just as 'stuck' in sq intellectually as you.  Your denial of this,
doesn't mean that you are not stuck just as much as the rest of us.  In
fact, your denial that you pollute the world with fixed metaphysical
meanings, means that you're more stuck because it means that you will never
fully confront any static quality that you create for you'd deny that you
have any to begin with..



Mark: I am not stuck, I am sorry that you are.  You can try as hard as you
want to get me stuck, but it ain’t going to work.  Been there, done that.

David:

A good mystic is one who doesn't deny that they pollute the world with
fixed metaphysical meanings.  Any Zen teacher or master will be of the
opinion that what the 'small self' creates is *not* the 'big self'.



Mark:  Jeeze!  You really are making these bars close together.  Pretty
soon they will be a wall and you won’t even get a glimpse of DQ.  Do you
think that Zen masters wrote what they did to just pollute their
understanding?  Of course not, they wrote what they did so that there could
be more Zen masters.  That is the whole purpose of the system, educate
people towards understanding.

> What has MOQ done for you lately?  Are you lying in a gutter, pissing in
> your pants?  Have you been drinking too much of that despicable MOQ juice?
> Go easy on that stuff or you will remain degenerate!  All this degeneracy
> has got to get to you sometime.

David

Mystic degeneracy.  The MOQ is intellectually very valuable.  The MOQ is a
great guide to life and can help us make good *intellectual* decisions
about our lives.



Mark:  Mystic degeneracy?  When static quality is formed it is no longer
mystical is it?  So how can this degenerate the mystical?    When a river
forms a canyon, does the canyon degenerate the river?  Please, think about
this.

> Mark: If you ARE your opinions, then where do these opinions come from?

David: DQ.



OK, at least you are honest with this.  Now, is DQ part of you or is it
somehow separate?

> Mark: I am Dynamic Quality, and so are you.  Stop thinking about it so
much and
> just do it!

David:

This is ugly.  You aren't DQ.  DQ isn't yours.  No thing is DQ.  No you,
not me, nor anything else..



Mark:  My Self is No Thing.  Look for it and you will not find it.  I am DQ!
You may think you are SQ, but you are not.

David:
Mark, I must also note that I have discussed things with you before, years
ago, and your views on the MOQ appear to have changed very little.  I think
this is because you do not accept that the MOQ really says very much at all
other than point to DQ.  If you realised how wrong this outlook is, then
you would be able to confront the sq of your own life and become a better
person as a result...



Mark:  Well David, I can say the same for you.  You are stuck in SQ in some
two dimensional world.  It is you who need to confront this cage you are
making around yourself before it is too late.  MOQ provides the key.

Cheers David,



Mark

.
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