> Ron prev:
What is reality less our view of it? How
do we know
> how Close it is?
SA: What will check against "our view of it" is the
pragmatism. When a rock hits me, that's nature
interjecting. When culture's clash, that's
nature/social patterns interjecting from the outside
in. I see this event as going both ways. I
will build a house, and the hill in which I want to
build the house will have input on where and how the
house will be built, to simplify as an example. What
do you think?
Ron:
I fully appreciate what you are saying and agree because
It accounts for DQ. Your description parallels my own
Thoughts about how the DQ/SQ process works.
Ron prev:
> I tend to err on the side of human-centricity
> Because it frees DQ from any anthropomorphism. Thus
> free of any Definition or description except what we
place on
> it. This to me strikes more precisely to the main
event.
SA: AAh, I see your point, and this is an excellent
point. I really didn't get until now. So, you "err
on the side of human..." due to "any definition or
description" of dq is human and thus, it is free of
definition unless "we place" definition upon it? Is
this what your saying?
Ron:
Exactly SA.
SA:
I've been coming at dq of inorganic patterns
from another angle. This angle is inorganic static
patterns are not intellectual patterns and thus, they
are inorganic spov's without intellectual spov
interference. Thus, without any intellectual spov
interference inorganic spov's remain with an element
of innocence or dq were an inorganic spov remains
undefined. How are the inorganic spov's without
intellectual spov's to know they are spov's still? I
see this happening due to the naturopomorphic aspect
in this event, "combination", or "connection". What
do you think?
Ron:
This is where my conversation with Jorge connects to this thread.
This is where I believe mind and matter join, if everything
Is composed of types of energy then energy falls into
The same situation as quality, it's value that differentiates
and brings Form from chaos.
This is my conversation with Platt at the moment.
We have established that Value, moral, and quality
All are terms for the same thing, a process.
Sq is an active dynamic balancing act. Domination
Initiates static collapse to DQ.
I'm trying to tell Platt that I think he is
Anthropomorphizing Quality. I see domination as
Accelerating the process of change as opposed to
What sustains a balance is likely to process slower,
Complete balance is again a domination and prone
To static collapse all the same. So Platt has a valid point.
But where he is wrong is the process. He mistakes the process
For the usher and thinks in terms of extremes.
Ron:
> Thanks for elevating this dialog several notches
> with your un-wavering Patience.
SA: I want to thank you. I think what we are doing
here in these two threads is exploring and outlining
how we approach each post and thread on this forum, do
you?
Ron:
I agree. If the time is taken for active inquiry I think
We would find that our ideas aren't as different and develop
Our thoughts mutually instead of being at odds with one another.
________________________________________________________________________
____________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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/
