The MOQ is all about perspective. Ultimately, from the perspective of DQ you are right. But there is more to life than this perspective. This is what I am saying.
> 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 never suffer Mark?
> 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.
I agree. But where does life sq come from? To begin with static quality is new. But does it continue as new forever? We can pretend that sq never gets old but this would be misrepresenting the natural state of things.
> 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
I agree, Buddhism does help 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.
Yes. Here you seem to be agreeing with me?
> 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.
There isn't a thing in existence which hasn't defined some thing as static and this is against the fundamental nature of the universe.
"Degeneracy, he guessed. Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity. 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.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." RMP - Lila.
> 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?
Because that is not possible. I'm defining things right now Mark and so are you - whether we like it or not..
> 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.
Where is the embracing of the MOQ supposed to lead Mark?