[MD] MOQ is good. What is it good for?

[Andre Broersen]

On 13/10 John Carl wrote:
I don't see how a metaphysics of undefinable Quality can be static. In fact, I'd say its in the very nature of Value to be dynamic and evolving.

Andre:
We’ve been going over this perspective more than once. It’s a shame that some still do not experience the difference between the menu and the food. Eat the metaphysics John…learn all its concepts, understandings,  perspectives,…it may even evoke smells, feelings, tastes…just by experiencing the menu ( this works better if you close your eyes)… and I guarantee you that that toward which it points…once eaten and thereby directly experienced will blow you away! Then you will realize the difference between the menu and the food.

Undefinable Quality is as you say not static and yet it is. It is it is this and that and neither this nor that. It is working and yet no working . Remember what Phaedres’  conclusion was`: He had done nothing for the Tao. (ZMM) ‚ rationality benefitted that is all…a way of reasoning, a way of conceptualizing a way of putting together a perspective of experiencing the universe..  

Quality has no nature to which to refer or seek refuge and neither has it any value or does not have any value. It contains value and brings it forth. But the Quality that can be spoken of through value is not the true Quality.

Quality is not evolving because there is nothing there to evolve. Value, as part of the MOQ, can be said to be evolving and therefore is considered to be in constant change. If you still do not grasp the difference between DQ and sq, between Quality and static patterns I would simply suggest to read LILA once again. Sorry to suggest this but what you write invites such a response.

JC:
The MoQ is a sort of metaphysics of evolution and thus it itself is all about evolving. 

Andre:
Yes JC, it is arguing all about evolving. And the menu is all about the food being prepared (evolving)  and with a bit of luck being presented daily and nightly. But no matter how detailed the description…( including all the sensory data) you will not know (including all the sensory data) what the food tastes like until you eat it, smell it, see it taste it and feel it. This does not require day nor night. 

You cannot experience the MOQ John!!!!! 

JC:
How can something that is about evolving toward betterness, be called "static”? 

Andre:
By realizing Quality and understanding that the reference to it is a pointer. When I say to you that that is a bird…do you see the bird or are you seeing that mystery flying through the air without leaving a trace? What you are arguing is that the bird is real…that it is a static and accurate representation of experience. 
Krishnamurti argued something devastating once. He said something like…as soon as you teach a child the word bird... that child will never really see a bird again.

That is something that happens when conceptualizing. You tend to forget that to which it refers. And when you try to remember you try to include all that to which the concept refers so as to make the concept as whole and representative as possible. And you fail dismally because you are relying on memory…the killer of direct, pure experience yet we cannot function without it. Phaedrus has a lot to say about that. 

JC: 
I guess it could be if it's author chose that it be static, but that seems a low-quality choice to me! 

Andre:
It appears to me to be a very wise and therefore high quality choice because it captures two things at once…the realization that there  must alway be a discrepancy between the concept and that to what is experienced. 
And that, my friend, is referring to the realization of something beyond concepts and beyond the experience to which it points.

DQ/sq.