> Ron:
> There is, value forms patterns of energy which
> define inorganic patterns
> Which define organic patterns, social patterns,
> intellectual patterns.
> The whole casaba. Value distinction.
SA: I guess I'm having difficulty with understanding,
"value forms". Is this an active role that value
takes? Value is doing an activity called 'forming'?
> SA previously: 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...
> Ron:
> Right, you got it. Better/worse are subjective
> interpretations Of the value act.
SA: "Subjective"? - meaning performed by a person?
Or "subjective" - meaning not able to be
'judged'/'valued' as more true than something else? I
don't know.
> SA previously: 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:
> Balance is, yes. But absolute balance where things
> become equal Is a type of domination it is not
dynamic any more.
SA: I guess I'm having difficulty with "equal" being
the same as "domination". They seem contradictory.
Yet, I think what your saying, I'm going to take a
shot in the dark, is when all becomes equal, the
wheels lock, everything gets a fair share, nothing can
be ahead or more moral, and this would mean the code
of art is no more. By code of art, I mean dq more
moral than sq.
Ron:
> When a see-saw is see-sawing it is in the act of
> balancing If one side dominates, say a fat kid, the
see-sawing
> stops. If there are two fat kids of equal weight
perfectly
> balanced The see-sawing stops too. But when that see
sawing
> is happening In balanced harmony, that's the sweet
spot where
> patterns linger Yet ever open to change. It's the
act, the process
> what gives Balance.
SA: I think I see what you mean. Was my example
above, in my previous comment, what you meant?
> SA previously: I'm not sure what you mean here.
> Ron:
> The value process is prime in the MoQ not
> Superiority, superiority is a subjective
> Interpretation. the act of value, of dynamic balance
> Is what is supreme, much the same way Aristotle
> Describes arête as per the golden mean.
SA: Yes, by trying to figure out what's on the
intellectual level, and what's lower morally, thus, on
the social level, is an activity of playing 'king of
the hill'. To keep trying to prove that one's view is
more superior takes away any inspiration. I view the
act of inspiration as including compassion, kindness,
etc... For inspiration is to occur when something
dynamic occurs, or something better (for somebody, it
may not for somebody else), but inspiration lifts one
to think they are on to something worthwhile. I could
go more into this, but I've got to go to work and I
want to send this before I leave. I don't think we're
finished with this last comment in this post.
woods,
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/
