At 11:00 AM 8/30/2007, Ron wrote: >which I interpret to mean static value and dynamic value are differing >types of value. >Value or quality is an umbrella term to cover many meanings. The mistake >I see is when >one places static value before subjects and objects in lieu of dynamic >value. >I believe doing this gives a false interpretation of a moral universe.
Hi Ron, That's why I like to reference Quality, which is both Dynamic and static. Quality (Dynamic and static) is dynamic. I could add that experience is process which is Quality. Differentiation is process which is Quality. Or I could just say you had to be there... I would also like to remind you that I didn't suggest s/o should be dropped. I stated, 'This s/o dualistic point-of-view is sometimes useful for solving problems in the way that we do, but still not reality.' We no longer set up problems from the pov that the sun and planets revolve around the earth. We no longer set up problems from the pov that the earth is flat. And I can imagine a day when this new worldview alters the way we hypothesize scientific problems. Isn't it already true that Science understands that the observation process influences the experiment? And aren't time and space much more complicated than we presently understand? Marsha 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
