Platt: Can you provide an example or two of how your approach resolves MOQ conflicts?
Ron: One common misconception is to view SQ/DQ in S/O terms. Giving rise to the perception that they are separate entities Ie. DQ acting upon SQ, or DQ animating, driving or empowering SQ. Rather than an alteration in the rules that define experience. Making Moq SQ heavy in the same way SOM is objective heavy. Creating much conflict but gaining little improvement In understanding. Two, is viewing the 4 levels in the same way, so they are perceived As separate levels in struggle rather than active distinctions of An active whole. (this ties in with the above misconception) Third is seeing better-ness as an entity rather than a function. Better-ness is aligning ourselves with Quality. Since the term "Quality" means Reality we focus on pre-intellectual awareness. Leaving "better-ness" undefined. Therefore reality is the standard for MoQ morality and its base in certainty. Patterns are experience. Patterns are Quality. Experience is expressed intellectually per MoQ, As static experience or "SQ" and dynamic experience Or "DQ". By understanding that this split is intellectual MoQ Solves the Mind/Matter paradox it does not exist In experience, it only exists intellectually. By placing empirical certainty on pre-intellectual Experience, MoQ is more certain than objectivism Which places certainty in intellectualism. By using DQ/SQ in lieu of S/O we are able to View reality as a whole in motion rather than A static solid state universe of objects in Space. 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/
