sorry - I didn't use the correct punctuation here... in this sentence - I meant to say this:
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? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:moq_discuss- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Margaret Warren > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 9:55 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [MD] Can DQ be Bad? > > > > > > > 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/ > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date: 9/4/2008 > 6:57 AM 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/
