Magnus:
> I'm not sure we're thinking about the same thing
> when you say "first split"?
> You seem to be thinking about the first time in the
> history of the universe
> something really new appeared.
SA: I provided two ways of looking at this. One was
the evolutionary time track, the natural history, of
inorganic to intellectual. The second was the 'first
split' happens all the time, which as you put here
below is a good way of saying what I'm referring to,
"In a metaphysical context, "first" means "most
important". Not temporally first." I like this.
Magnus:
> When I read the subject of this thread "first
> split", I thought about the first
> split of the MoQ, the DQ/SQ split.
> In a metaphysical context, "first" means "most
> important". Not temporally first.
Magnus goes on:
> Another way to express the DQ/SQ split is to say
> that it's the difference
> between "being" and "becoming". If we compare this
> to SOM's first split (the S/O
> split), it's actually rather self-evident that the
> DQ/SQ split is more basic
> than S/O.
> Think of it this way:
> The S/O split is the split between the subjective
> observer and the object being
> observed. However, nothing is said about how neither
> the subject nor object came
> to be in the first place.
SA: Yes, true.
Magnus:
> The DQ/SQ split however, does. It's the difference
> between what is and what may
> come to be. I can't think of any more basic split.
SA: Yes, or what is patterned and what is not
patterned. I can allow myself to have a moment when I
notice many patterns. I can crouch down in the grass
and notice all the tiny grains of sand mixed in with
the black humus of decayed plants with different sizes
of ants walking by with the tiny legs, etc... (the
zoom-in version of Krimmel-speak) I could also notice
the underlying nondistinct, nonboundary patterns where
the details are still present but I'm not signifying
these details. I still recognize the ants, the grass,
the tiny grains of sand, but I'm noticing them as
borderless. Out of this borderless dynamic experience
the static patterns emerge and these static patterns
can be noticed as being here all along, slightly more
delineated with distinctions, etc... This is how I
see dynamic quality as everything and static quality
as everything. These two qualities are the same, yet,
different interpretations of this same. We call one
interpretation static and the other dynamic. They are
both quality (same). What do you think?
I really like how you explained 'first' as 'most
important'. That is a good way of saying this.
woods,
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/
