Hi David,
You are mistaken in more ways than one.  I guess that does not
surprise you now that you are lucid about such possibilities.

It would seem you are ripe for some Buddhist intervention since you
see life as suffering.  This can be abolished through Buddhist ritual
if you need it.  Personally I do not.  Do you consider the newness of
a budding plant to be painful and old?  What we consider sq is
glorious!  Why denigrate the state we live in so much?  Life starts
with death, it is not painful, but rejuvenating.  The Mayan calendar
does not end with pain and destruction, or even human death for that
matter.  It is a time to rejuvenate.  A time to reconsider our Values.
It is like the first of January every year.  But perhaps you are
caught up in the misery cycle.  Again, Buddhism will help you with
that.

Polluting the world with static ideas?  Is not this concept a static
idea on its own?  Who is doing the pollution, David.  Marsha has
opinions, but you do not have to breath the second hand smoke.  How
about looking for the diamond in the rough there?  Character
assassination, now that is pollution indeed.  How about if you put an
entry into Wiki concerning Marsha.  It is freely open to opinions, and
one can find references for any point of view (Wiki begets more Wiki),
you know, and those vast intellects that provide us with Knowledge to
live our lives by do it all the time.

If you are after purity, go take a swim in the ocean.  You are
bringing in "original sin" here.  The formation of static quality IS
original sin, the way you present it.  The bible may help you with
this.  It is full of how sinful we are.  Give it a read, it is right
up your alley.  You will find comfort in like minds.

I don't get it, you can leave DQ "like that", but not sq?  What kind
of crusade are you on?  Why do you keep forming thoughts and cavorting
with the devil?  You can be free of sq and leave the "suffering" to
us.  How about that David!   You are like a director that makes movies
about porn movies to show how bad they are.  Your presentation only
amplifies sq, something you see as evil.  Why don't you just leave
your virginity intact?

As you say, sq can never "capture" DQ; words can never capture
awareness, so why try. You are grabbing DQ by the throat and trying to
promote it.  What nonsense.  You obviously have not thought this
through.  Perhaps sq represents DQ, but this would be a definition for
DQ, as "that which is represented by sq".  Actions represent
awareness.  Your problems with Marsha reflect your awareness of the
world.  This is not where the embracing of MoQ is supposed to lead
(IMO).  But then again, we are all learning here.  That is of course
those of us who do not profess to have the answer.

Then again, your post may have just been an attempt to be sarcastic.
If so, I commend you on your insight.

Cheers,
Mark

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:27 AM, David Harding <davidjharding@gmai...> wrote:
> 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
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