> > SA previously: The moq is a philosophy. Thus,
the moq is
> not just an intellectual value,
Chris:
> It may not be, however it has grown from the
> intellectual level, influenced by DQ of course.
SA: The moq is the intellectual level. The moq is
the social, biological, and the inorganic level, too.
The moq is dynamic quality. Quality is direct
experience. Quality is value is moral. Quality is
split into two sides of the same coin understanding
called static quality and dynamic quality. Quality is
intellectual. Quality is social. Quality is organic.
Quality is inorganic. Quality is dynamic, too.
Value and moral and experience are interchangeable
with quality. The moq doesn't grow from anything - it
is everything.
Chris:
> The SOM, or rather the whole distinction between a
> subject world and an
> object world and the specific reactions to Quality
> that that kind of
> "thinking" produces is indeed a Level.
SA: The moq has redefined what the intellectual level
is. Thinking has been redefined by the moq.
Intellectualizing about the moq is now value-ladened.
To intellectualize is to not distinguish reality
between a subject and an object. To intellectualize
is to understand the monism, not the separtist
approach to reality. In a value-oriented intellect,
it is better to care than to try to rip the fabric of
reality into two's.
SOM is not around anymore. The moq shows how SOM
is not really what's been happening all along. A
value, moral way of perceiving reality is around now.
Quality is not something to react to. Quality is all
there is. Thus, there is nothing outside of quality
that reacts with quality. Reality is quality, and
reality is, well, defined by four levels and an
undefined aspect. SOM is what the moq replaces, thus,
SOM is gone. SOM was the effort that really couldn't
work. People tried it for over two thousands years
and more, and yet some people realized SOM was an
effort to squeeze a reality into a narrow perspective.
I mean SOM is saying the world is divided between s's
and o's and people tried to say the world is this way,
but the moq says, nop, the world isn't only about
this. Reality is much more than this. And the way
people have intellectualized for ages has been more
than an SOM. It's the same as saying all we do is
divide the world up into s's and o's, and that's all
we do when we intellectualize. I find this kind of
bottlenecking of how people intellectualize to place
limits on what intellectualizing is. This is why to
narrow intellectualizing to SOM is to reject a much
larger aspect of what intellectualizing is about.
People knew this for thousands of years. This is why
no one philosophy has been able to take hold in
western civilization. Philosophers keep finding
wrongs about all the philosophies before them. Not
one school of philosophy in the west exists unchanged
- if you could show otherwise I would be surprised.
This is why I like dynamic quality of the moq. This
keeps the moq open to change and thus, even with
change the moq admits it is not fully defined, so,
people can keep adding to what the moq is and this
doesn't change the moq. Even if the levels are rid
of, the moq would state dq is not undefined and the
static levels were really not able to define dq to
begin with and we would all know this, if you know
what dq is.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
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/
