Hi Joe Interesting thoughts. Is energy pure DQ, change without structure? Is matter a diminishing of change to create patterns/forms? Is consciousness what is left of DQ when embodied in an organism?
Are patterns, rocks, habits, all SQ, the opposite of awareness/consciousness? When there is law is there no room/need for decisions? Where law is not enough does DQ have to choose? David M Hi Bo, Ham, Steve, and all, I am enjoying trying to delineate the boundaries of each level. The inorganic level is continuous based on its shape. I assert, then that dq shapes nothingness. In the inorganic order reproduction is a problem as the only way the shape can be reproduced is by collision. For galaxies this works fine but on the surface of the Earth, it creates more destruction than reproduction. The organic reproduces through a modification by dq from the inside. First there is one-celled reproduction For variety dq organic-man reproduces through the penetration of the cell wall by sperm. Now there is a two-celled reproduction-woman. For guidance dq reproduction-woman has proprietary awareness-consciousness to replace gravity-induced motion, the social level. For direction the aloneness of proprietary-awareness recognizes the necessary relationship to another, dq law, the intellectual level. The intellectual level, law, is the last level on a planetary scale. Now only the individual level, consciousness, progresses. Dq metaphysics is a reflection by the individual on the level of law. Dq reflection on metaphysics is an awareness of all. Joe On 1/31/08 10:31 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ham and Steve > > 30 Jan. : > > Ham originally: >>> If an organism is a biological pattern that is made up of matter, >>> which the MOQ considers "inorganic", why does the organism not share >>> this inorganic property? An organism would be made up of minerals, >>> like phosphorous, calcium, and carbon, for example. Logically, to >>> the extent that it contains such inorganic matter, it shares the >>> properties (or nature) of matter. > > Steve: >> Biological patterns can't exist without inorganic patterns. The >> organism you are thinking of a collection of both types of patterns. > > Bo agrees with Steve (for once ;-) > > Ham originally:: >>> Are you saying that because it is a "pattern" it is the intellect, >>> rather than Nature, which constructs an organism? > > Bo: > First to the basics. Culture/Nature is one of intellect's S/O > dichotomies. There is neither nature nor organisms in the MOQ > only inorganic and biological patterns, and it's DQ that created > the biological level from the inorganic level. > >>> Is it the general >>> concept that objects are patterns observed by the intellect only, >>> that is to say, that they have no independent existence? > > You may have had this impression from the distorted MOQ, but > not in the true MOQ. Intellect has nothing to do with mind, > thinking or consciousness. All levels have "independent static" > existence, nothing about "do trees fall if no one observes .." or > the more advanced "Schrodinger Cat" variety. The MOQ > dissolves all SOM-induced paradoxes. > >>> If so, do >>> the elements of chemistry and physics exist, or are they only >>> patterns too? > > The MOQ just says that there are patterns of value and that' all it > is concerned with, the various scientific disciplines' classification > is intellect's business and exists at that level as such. NB! Social > existence surely had names for everything bur yours above was > about elements of chemistry and physics. > > Steve: >> It is intellect that takes undivided experience and creates the >> pattern called "organism," but this is not to say that there is not >> real experience prior to the inference of this pattern. ....snip > > Bo: > Intellect (as science) classifies biological patterns but "...intellect > takes undivided experience and creates organisms" is nonsense. > if it means "creates biological patterns". The biological level is > DQ's second creation while intellect is its fourth. > >> The MOQ does not even object to the idea that objects have an >> independent existence, it just points out that this is an idea, and >> like any other idea should be taken only so far as it is practical. > > In a metaphysics that rejects the subject/object divide, objects > and subjects do not exist outside the former SOM, i.e. at the > intellectual level. > > IMO > > Bo > > > > > 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/ 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/ 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/
