Hello Magnus. On 20 April:
> Christoffer Ivarsson wrote: > > I will agree to the MOQ being the Quality understanding of things. > > The MOQ is a new starting point, from which all things is > > categorized. I agree with Cris, the MOQ is the meta-level from where we categorize all existence. > > The MOQ cannot be an intellectual pattern, because A > > can't produce A. I see the point and it's valid, however I have locked on to the container logic. I will comment on Chris' later. > No static pattern can produce anything really new by itself. DQ is > always required. On the other hand DQ can create anything. Each level sprang from the lower level urged on by a relentless dynamic pull. This is MOQ's explanation of why things evolve, but the sequence is established, no level can be skipped. > It's not SOM that has created the MoQ, which will then create MoQ2, and > then MoQ3, etc. DQ has created all of them. It's very much SOM that created the MOQ in the sense of its inconsistencies being the cause of young P's "lateral drift" and eventually his Quality Quest. What you mean by a MOQ 2 and 3 I don't understand? > So, as SA said, we don't need any meta-level. Just DQ. Would DQ be around hadn't the MOQ been? Don't get me wrong. Inside the MOQ the DQ/SQ configuration is from eternity - like Gravity is inside Newton's Physics - but many of you folks keep insisting that the MOQ is some arbitrary division of a Quality from eternity. F.ex. that SOM was a "moq" .... OK, this I will direct to Arlo because he raised that issue. Bo 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/
