> SA previously: 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.
SA: I'm glad we could keep a discussion this long,
even if to find out we're we may differ, but here, on
this point, we find agreement. I know where your
coming from with more precision. Thanks.
> 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 previously: 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: Excellent! I agree with you.
> SA previously:
> 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.
SA: I see what you mean, when you say, "mind and
matter join". This is "This Event" that I'm referring
to, and what I believe you mentioned as "connection"
and "combination". Once the joining occurs, I see a
shift in how the world is experienced throughout
history and until now, the on-going present. How
history and now is viewed in this "join" changes from
the old SOM or samsara view. I also see where your
going with "energy", except I'm not sure what you mean
by, "it's value that differentiates and brings Form
from chaos." There seems to be a lot meaning wrapped
up in this short phrase.
Ron:
> 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.
SA: Yes. I agree that spov's, spom's, and spoq's are
the same.
Ron:
> Sq is an active dynamic balancing act. Domination
> Initiates static collapse to DQ.
SA: You said a mouthful here. I'm going to chop this
up smaller and comment upon each sentence or so to
point out what I understand and what I don't. This
above, I do understand.
Ron:
> I'm trying to tell Platt that I think he is
> Anthropomorphizing Quality.
SA: Is this the "err human" that you mentioned?
Ron:
> I see domination as
> Accelerating the process of change as opposed to
> What sustains a balance is likely to process slower,
SA: Well, it depends on what kind of change, correct?
Domination for a change that is not dynamic and is
not for a higher moral level, this is domination that
will speed the process, but not one that is for the
better. I see what your saying in domination triggers
acceleration, but this are very general terms, and is
the kind of domination, the kind of change. I don't
know what you, if you don't mean what I said here.
Ron:
> Complete balance is again a domination and prone
> To static collapse all the same.
SA: How is "complete balance" these events or "prone"
events? Isn't balance dq and sq working together
well? Thus, dynamic quality, a static latch, the
gumption remains, and this process continues.
Ron:
> 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.
SA: I'm not sure what you mean here. I haven't been
able to keep up with all the threads. I read all the
threads, but it takes some time for me to read threads
I'm not currently involved with, especially if many
posts are being submitted to the forum.
Ron previously:
> > Thanks for elevating this dialog several notches
> > with your un-wavering Patience.
> SA previously: 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.
SA: Yeap! Completely agree.
woods are cold with snow still laying,
the earth has been wet by snow, ice, and rain since
December,
it has not dried up one bit since then,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
