Golly goodness Marsha. My mistake. Teaches me not to write posts at midnight..

Sent from my iPhone

On 23/01/2012, at 12:11 AM, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:

>
>
> David,
>
> You are addressing Mark's post not mine.
>
> But for good measure:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtTzipFWuKk
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2012, at 7:56 AM, David Harding wrote:
>
>> 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@gmai...> 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@gmai...> 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
>> 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
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