>From owner-moq_discuss@mill.venus.co.uk Mon Oct 5 22:32:30 1998
>Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> by mill.venus.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id GAA12395
> for moq_discuss-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 06:28:59 +0100 (BST)
>Received: from userwww.hkg.com (root@ford.hkg.com [202.161.224.28])
> by mill.venus.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA12391
> for <moq_discuss@moq.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 06:28:52 +0100 (BST)
>Received: from lexus.hkg.com (root@lexus.hkg.com [202.161.224.22])
> by userwww.hkg.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA15841
> for <moq_discuss@moq.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:14:49 +0800
>Received: from 202.161.254.52 (ipg1-052.hkg.com [202.161.254.52])
> by lexus.hkg.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA04855
> for <moq_discuss@moq.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:40:03 +0800
>Message-ID: <361A18FA.71BE@hongkong.com>
>Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 13:19:51 +0000
>From: Diana McPartlin <diana@hongkong.com>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD What is Dynamic Quality
>References: <005301be6a88$4f63f540$e55087d1@rc12lc>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>
>Hi everyone
>
>I'm playing a CD I bought last week very loudly and singing along, also
>loudly - it's great. Last night we went to the lantern festival in the
>park, some people had big old lanterns with real candles, others had
new
>plasticy ones - the old ones were better (although we speculated that,
>sadly, the kids probably preferred the electronic "hello kitty" ones).
>Earlier in the evening I bought a new suit. The salesgirl advised me to
>buy a different skirt from the one I liked, but I didn't - I don't need
>her to tell me what's good.
>
>These are dynamic events, explained in som terms. I'm shouldn't have to
>say this, but the DQ does not lie in the music, the lanterns or the
>suit, it lies _between_ me and these objects.
>
>And then there's the dynamic quality of the brujo. That's a more long
>term kind of thing. Like the MoQ Discussion group. I don't find it
>wonderful all the time but I feel it's good because I get frustrated by
>the SOM. If more people would see things the way I do it would be
>better. Taking part in discussions such as this is a step towards
>changing things.
>
>Oh god I'm being all romantic aren't I. Well DQ is only a stone's throw
>from romantic quality. In ZMM romantic quality seems second rate - like
>those dumb people who don't want to know how a motorcycle works. Yeah
>of course we say that it's just as important but nobody really thinks
>that.
>
>In LILA most of what was romantic gets shifted into Dynamic but with
>more power behind it. And there are a few news things in there - the
>quality of the American Indian going on a vision quest; the quality of
>the brujo campaigning for social change even though he himself doesn't
>even know why he's doing it. Motorcycle maintenance becomes a process
of
>moving towards DQ (gumption) and away from static. The difference
>becomes the difference between good maintenance and bad maintenance
>rather than the difference between maintaining the bike and riding on
>it.
>
>The challenge for us is to show how these events which have previously
>been discarded as subjective are actually the basis of reality -
neither
>subjective nor objective. If we continue to ignore them as subjective
>(in spite of the examples given in LILA!) then we're just chasing our
>tails in the SOM like everyone else. You have to forget about what
>skience is supposed to be about and look at your own experience
>directly, yourself, honestly.
>
>I haven't got the faintest idea what the immediate flux of experience
or
>the cutting edge of reality means, but Pirsig is a decent writer so he
>gave us examples. I do know what it feels like to hear a great song, or
>feel passionate about a cause or feel great after trauma, or see the
>answer to an equation, or have fun.
>
>Then ... having identified DQ in your own life the next step is to find
>out how it relates to the objective universe. It is supposed to be the
>bond between the two, but simply saying so doesn't automatically make
it
>so. If you want to say it's potential or purpose, okay fine, but then
>you need to show why that should be so at both the subjective and the
>objective levels.
>
>As we stand at the moment the "feels good" aesthetic explanation of DQ
>works well at the subjective level while the "possibilities"
explanation
>looks like it might have something in common with quantum physics and
so
>would be a good objective explanation.
>
>But, like I said, what we need to do is combine them.
>
>
>Diana
Dear Diana,
Since we have or feel, free will and awareness, that is where the
interaction between possibility and probability comes in. Awareness
combined with action or will, is what creates our Reality, or the
Awareness, of Subjects and Objects. Great examples, Diana!
Best regards,
Paul aka. Needle.
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST