This is probably not a new topic for this forum, but a separation of Quality from Nature would be useful for me. The scientific use of Evolution leaves me confused.
Any discussion of this would of course need definitions. But let's assume we all know what Nature is, and discuss how Quality is not just another word for it. Nature is used as a specific term in evolution, as in Natural Selection. Originally evolution was thought to proceed through a dynamic interplay between the environment and the species. In this way, to correlate the two terms, Quality is the environment and everything else (help me here) is what Quality creates and inter-plays dynamically with. Quality itself does not evolve but pushes reality towards a certain direction. Opposed to this is the notion that everything contains Quality as an inner Nature, and it is not possible to separate things from Quality. In this way, Quality would simply be a descriptive terms for something. If Quality is not static, ever-present, then there may be a dynamic interplay within Quality, which appears to be denoted as a dynamic component and a static component. Just as species affect the environment they live in, both static and dynamic Quality coevolve, both ever changing. This however would require a force or principle outside of Quality. That is Quality is evolving in response to something, making this dynamic interplay worthy of philosophical discussion. If we equate Quality to Nature, we can say that both are good, both are creative, both encompass everything that there is. Nature can be divided up into static objects, and dynamic forces. There are a variety of Natural levels which can be objectified as systems. So my question, is what is different about Quality? Thanks, Mark 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/
