On 13 February 2008 2:27 PM Ham writes to Ron, Ian, [Joseph Mentioned]: <snip> Whereas evolution is fundamental to Dynamic Quality, it is not fundamental to my primary source. Essence, as I've defined it, is unchanging, immutable, static. Change (like MoQ's patterns) occurs (or is experienced) when Essence is actualized as difference. In my ontology, movement or "process" in space/time is an apparent reduction (negation) of Oneness into diversity, the individual phenomena being divided by nothingness. But, since Essence is absolute, it fills all voids with its value, and the "sensible agent" that is estranged from its essential source is the individual.self--you and me. Thus, in the MoQ sense, we are differentiated patterns of an ultimately undifferentiated source, and we experience this source as a dynamic system of infinite complexity. Which explains why my idea of S/O as a "dynamic" reality, and the ultimate source (DQ) as "static", expressed in words, seems to contradict yours. Hi Ham and all, I misunderstood your ontology, I am sorry! I am OK with no more words. Joe
On 2/13/08 2:27 PM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ron, Ian, [Joseph mentioned] -- > > I think that between Ron and Ian, I now have an answer to my primary > question: > > Ron said: >> The term static is relative for it all is in dynamic flux. Static >> in turn refers to perceptible phenomena in a dynamic >> flowing field. > > Ian said: >> Static/Dynamic are relative concepts, extremes on a >> continuum. >> Something is static if it's moving slow enough for you >> to see the pattern. ... >> Patterns are relatively static - by definition of the word pattern, even. > > Excellent. That's putting the theory in terms I can understand, and it also > points out the difference between DQ and Essence as a postulated source > underlying all existence. > > "Go with the flow" now has new meaning for me as an ontological concept. If > I've got it right, every phenomenon experienced is a static "snapshot", as > it were, of the whole continuum or stream in process. And, duly observing > Ian's and Ron's caveat that "pattern" is a relative term, I will avoid the > urge to parse patterns to death. > > There are problems, of course, with the concept of a source in motion. For > example, at some point in time all phenomena or patterns will have reached > their ultimate level, which means that new patterns will have to take their > place. So the moving stream of Quality is constantly replenished, like so > many waves rippling endlessly toward the shore. The waves are not ultimate > reality; they are only the patterns we observe as we look at the ocean. > > This also partially answers Joe's question to me concerning my avoidance of > evolution. For those of you who've had problems interpreting Essentialism > as an ontology, the following comparison with the MoQ may be helpful. > > Whereas evolution is fundamental to Dynamic Quality, it is not fundamental > to my primary source. Essence, as I've defined it, is unchanging, > immutable, static. Change (like MoQ's patterns) occurs (or is experienced) > when Essence is actualized as difference. In my ontology, movement or > "process" in space/time is an apparent reduction (negation) of Oneness into > diversity, the individual phenomena being divided by nothingness. But, > since Essence is absolute, it fills all voids with its value, and the > "sensible agent" that is estranged from its essential source is the > individual.self--you and me. Thus, in the MoQ sense, we are differentiated > patterns of an ultimately undifferentiated source, and we experience this > source as a dynamic system of infinite complexity. Which explains why my > idea of S/O as a "dynamic" reality, and the ultimate source (DQ) as > "static", expressed in words, seems to contradict yours. > > The question you may want to ask yourselves is: Are you more comfortable > with an endless moving stream (DQ) as the primary reality, or an absolute > and immutable source (Essence)? In either ontology there is (however well > it has been articulated) a metaphysical explanation for the appearance of > difference and change (i.e., levels and patterns). > > Good work, gentlemen! Thanks for helping me get a better grasp on the MoQ > theory. Not only do I understand the basic concept, I think I'm now in a > better position to address some of the issues involved with Essentialism. > > Best regards, > Ham > > 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/
