Hello Heather >> > 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.
Well this is just plain wrong. You cannot put a = between the MOQ and the Dynamic Quality it talks about, we may here think that a MOQ understanding of things is much better, but we also realize that it is A understanding. It is contained within words, within our brains, seen though our eyes: so it's static "Just another finger pointing to the moon". What you describe seems to be the Buddha. > 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. And what you are saying here below is just. no, the MOQ has said there IS a intellectual level, the MOQ has said there is another way of understanding reality, a way where everything is value. But that doesn't mean that all other ways vanish like *poff* They are still there. The SOM is still - we may not believe it, but most people do. I feel it is important that we all realize how the rest of the world looks at things - how all of the levels fit in - before we start proclaiming that everything is Quality; through to us that might be the most natural thing ever. Furthermore: the intellectual level is now Still that special thinking derived from reasoning from a SOM basis, and the MOQ grew from this level and is now floating somewhere outside it, but with far to many (or far to few some people may say) ties to it. It Might replace it later - we think it will, because we see it's Quality. But we have to make other people see the Value of it too. > 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. ----- 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/
