> David to Andre:
> Yes. This is one perspective of the MOQ and it's not 'wrong'. I will also say though, that the MOQ has a division at its core. So fundamental is this division of the MOQ - it leads to two very separate very different perspectives. From the perspective of static quality, yes, the MOQ is an intellectual pattern of value. But, fundamentally, as I've said, the MOQ is more than that. It is a way of life. There is so much more to life than this or that static classification. DQ cannot be defined but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> Well David, I do not quite agree here. It reminds me a bit of Kipling's East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet. The MOQ is an attempt to_integrate_ the 'mystic' and the Western 'scientific' perspectives/approaches to life. I thought that this is what set Phaedrus on his path in the first place in ZMM and continued in LILA. To stress the perspective of one above/over the other is not doing the MOQ any favours. You only get one half of the equation.
Yes. You do only get one half of the equation with either perspective.
That is why the MOQ has the distinction to begin with. There is no
simultaneous DQ/sq perspective. Marsha fails to see the importance of
distinct static things. This is the perspective of DQ. But there is a
whole other world of these distinct static things which is actually
> That is why I have difficulty with Marsha's perspective. You say:"As I see it, in Marsha's mind - everything is fundamentally DQ, so these sq divisions are not that important".
> If they are not that important why did Gautama get up from under the bodhi tree? Or, for that matter: What led him to go and sit there in the first place?
That sounds like a Zen koan Andre. This question can be taken from
either perspective. I have heard Zen buddhists call Zen useless.
> If we can help her see that then maybe she will change her mind.... Until then, it's just hot air...
> Marsha has rejected 'help' from anyone over the years but I am glad you agree that what Marsha's perspective amounts to is 'just hot air'.
Actually that's not what I mean. By 'hot air' I mean that until Marsha
can see a better way of seeing things, she's not going to change her
mind about the unimportance of distinct static things.
So in that case calling her names or some such is just 'hot air' until
she can see a better way..