On Sunday 5 April 2009 11:00 AM markhsmit writes to Joe: Hi Joe, [Markhsmit] To propose solutions your question(s) below: The metaphor of the ocean containing both transient waves, and the potential for ever changing waves is supposed to give the same feeling as the two parts of Quality unified. It is incomplete, but the notion that it has to apply to land is not necessary. [Joe] IMO Previous to MOQ, SOM posited a Body/Mind division. According to SOM psychology as proposed by Aristotle and Aquinas, the mind abstracts the essence from the object and gives the essence intentional existence in the mind as an idea. The object has real existence outside the mind. Intentional existence in the mind was the explanation for disembodied knowledge. Evolution is an existential order for which order SOM gives no metaphysical basis. [Joe] IMO >From MOQ DQ/SQ, Quality, dynamic/static, ideas are placed in some order of evolution. DQ remains undefined as an order in existence. DQ/SQ as active, passive, or neutral describes a manifestation within MOQ. [Markhsmit] I'll try this with evolution. In biology the forms of life are SQ, evolution is DQ, Quality is both static and dynamic expression. With the planet itself, the form of the planetis SQ, the ever-changing presentation of this form is DQ (uplifting and erosion for example), the Big Bang (which I don't subscribe to), is Quality. If the big bang created time, space, and cause-effect, as is thought by the cosmologists. With feelings, SQ are the feelings, DQ is the propensity for feeling to come and go, or transmute, and Quality is...? At-one-ment? [Joe] IMO I see the planet as a DQ/SQ cosmic evolution supporting a lower level DQ/SQ planetary evolution, organic life. Sentient life is the highest form of organic evolution on the earth¹s surface.
Joe On 4/5/09 11:00 AM, "markhsmit" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Joe, > > To propose solutions your question(s) below: The metaphor of the ocean > containing both transient > waves, and the potential for ever changing waves is supposed to give the same > feeling as the two > parts of Quality unified. It is incomplete, but the notion that it has to > apply to land is not necessary. > I'll try this with evolution. In biology the forms of life are SQ, evolution > is DQ, > Quality is both static and dynamic expression. With the planet itself, the > form of the planet > is SQ, the ever-changing presentation of this form is DQ (uplifting and > erosion for example), > the Big Bang (which I don't subscribe to), is Quality. If the big bang > created time, space, and > cause-effect, as is thought by the cosmologists. With feelings, SQ are the > feelings, > DQ is the propensity for feeling to come and go, or transmute, and Quality > is...? At-one-ment? > > Willblake2 > > > On Apr 4, 2009, at 1:08:22 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday 2 April 2009 6:26 PM Markhsmit writes to Joe: > > [Markhsmit] > Yes, stories are a lot of fun, and revealing too. > > As many will say (J. Campell, for example), myths are metaphors for > something fundamental (Quality) being revealed in human experience. The > trouble is that trying to categorize that something, immediately creates a > system of understanding that leaves everything out. > > Metaphors are useful. If Quality were the ocean, then SQ are the waves, and > DQ would be the currents, or the waves ever appearing and disappearing. > What do you think? > > Willblake2 > > Hi Markhsmit and all, > > [Joe] > Does DQ have the same relationship to SQ that currents have to waves? To > evolution? There is certainly some relationship. Using the metaphor of the > ocean for quality would work on water world, but then what is dry land in > relationship to DQ as static and fluid are in opposition? Which metaphor is > closer to DQ, an undefined aspect of evolution? I guess the changes caused > by earthquakes would also be a metaphor for DQ in an ocean or landmass. > > Joe > > > > On 4/2/09 6:26 PM, "markhsmit" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, stories are a lot of fun, and revealing too. >> >> As many will say (J. Campell, for example), myths are metaphors for something >> fundamental (Quality) being revealed in human experience. The trouble is >> that >> trying to categorize that something, immediately creates a system of >> understanding that leaves everything out. >> >> Metaphors are useful. If Quality were the ocean, then SQ are the waves, and >> DQ would be the currents, or the waves ever appearing and disappearing. What >> do you think? >> >> Willblake2 > > > 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/ > > > 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/ 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/
