Ron you wrote: > Contrary to Chris, I do not think of it in terms of a static entity > "responding" to some unknown force called dynamic quality. That would be > Looking at it in a subject/object way, which MoQ breaks from. > > It implies cause and effect it implies dynamic is separate from static. > > MoQ simply falls apart at this level when interpreted this way. > > Matter is energy, thoughts are energy, we are energy. Patterns of > Convergent energy. And that's about as close as my tiny skull > Can get.
Well, the MOQ does make the DQ/SQ distinction doesn't it? This I feel is merely a language problem, but you do have a point: Everything is quality, but from a MOQ perspective, which overwrites the SOM perspective everything is either Static Patterns of Value, or Dynamic Quality, the latter we cannot put into words, since when we do so it will be static. But I don't really think there is a big disagreement here since we all agree on the view that everything is Quality, Value. Regards Chris 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/
