> > > Margaret! > > I liked your post. > > This: > > there is DQ BECAUSE we have SQ...or vice versa. > > > is excactly what I mean. > > > i.e. there has to be some static pattern before something dynamic can > > occur > > to change it and vice versa. > > > we resonate with other entities who share similar perceptions and learn > a > > lot from those entities who have differing perceptions > > Yes, I agree I think. And I would add, that the Good that is pure > Quality/dynamic quality is what keeps the static patterns going, because > everything moves toward what they thing quality is, that is from their > static and flawed point of view. so when they see another aspect of Good, > well, then that's dynamic indeed, but the Good was always there, > infinitely > greater in its whole than they can know/understand/perceive. > > I think. This way we don't make Plato's mistake. > Thanks Chris - I am going to think over your last paragraph. I think I basically agree with it. I have problems with the word "Good" - even defining quality as a state of "Good", because it seems to imply a state that is 'better' - which sounds quite right as you describe it above, but not when I try to apply this reasoning at a much bigger level -
I don't know if I (a human alive in a collaboratively defined time as 2008 AD (all subjective) - am in a state that is "Good" relative to whatever 'good' state that existed on this planet before humans evolved. I have a problem with the idea of 'evolution' evolving toward something 'better' or with greater quality even. I can say that the states change in ways that entities perceive as better quality relative to whatever state they were just previously in, but I don't know that if you try to elevate that thinking to encompass bigger patterns - are humans a better state than no humans? is bach a better quality than Hendrix? we've attempted to address some of these questions before in this discussion group and I just don't know if I can get into applying the idea that we are evolving socially or intellectually...changing definitely - but towards 'better' states. So back to the question 'Can DQ be Bad?' Since I think Good and Bad are subjective, then I think Static and Dynamic Quality is neither "Good" nor "Bad", but is also both "Good" and "Bad" both at the same time. Sorry about repeating myself - mostly I'm using this e-mail to flesh out my thoughts a little more. Margaret 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/
