Andre, I liked your post and this one thing jumped out at me, tied in to theory that Q can only be defined experientially.
I've postulated DQ as a creative force analogous to gravity, but I'd say a closer analogy is the magnetic force - the thing that swings our moral compass "northward", as it were. You know, George Lucas started in this direction I think, with all his talk of "the force" but we all got distracted by special effects and forgot the main point. The cosmos as containing/being contained as an intrinsically moral structure - with a definite direction. The pragmatism comes in when you move toward betterness according to this moral compass, and it is communicated and reinforced socially. That's what latches. Describing this experience translates to others so that both subjects see the same quality and are unified in their perception, in that moment: Quality creates unity. Now, when the intrinsic Quality of an object is recognized by two or more different subjects, then not only are the heretofor separate subjects now unified, but their individual comprehension of that object is also perfected. However, this can only be true when both subjects care more about the truth than they do their subjective reality - otherwise the process degrades to political coercion. This has led to the two different ways of dealing with Quality. About > direct experience you do not talk...there is no-thing to talk about. > The second way is the conventional way, you know, the metaphysical > way, etc,etc,etc. > > For what it is worth, > Andre > Well what its worth is, its worth discussion! John 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/
