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. Chris: Well, the MOQ does make the DQ/SQ distinction doesn't it? This I feel is
merely a language problem, Ron: It is, the language we are using is subject object heavy. It implies Excluded middles. A distinction must be made in order to talk about Anything but It helps to understand they are aspects of value. Not distinct Entities in themselves. Chris: 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. Ron: from our perception yes, but theoretically it is all the same dynamic process. Chris: But I don't really think there is a big disagreement here since we all agree on the view that everything is Quality, Value. Ron: No disagreement really, but it does effect a discussion if there is a Conflict of opinions on this matter, analytic thinking may sneak in And murder a concept before it gets off the ground just by language alone And the associated thinking that's attached to it. (which is analytic by nature). So static/ dynamic isn't really a split. But are convenient terms To express a type of distinction.. it's the expression of a distinction Which creates the illusion of distinct and separate entities especially when we begin to use them in abstractions for comprehension of their relationships. I really don't think there is a recognition of subject/object Until this level of abstracting distinctions is realized. SOM may be unique To Greek culture simply based on how the language system refers to Distinctions, the Greeks saw s/o because that was how the language Treated the distinctions, which in turn developed into a rational Way of connecting and expressing ideas in certain terms. I'm teaching my daughter to read English, which I find out is a Collection of terms borrowed from other lexicons. Therefore There are no hard fast rules on pronunciation, I find that Just using English to express ideas channels those ideas in a particular fashon. Do you find flipping from your native language to English conflicts with meaning In cases of comprehension? 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/
