Hello everyone On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:46 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > HI Dan, > > I always enjoy reading your posts, and I wish I had the > privilege more often. I do not know anything about the > BOC, but have enjoyed reading texts about Eastern > philosophy (Buddhism's emptiness).
Hi Marsha Thank you! I have never read much Eastern philosophy. John was good enough to send a copy of THE GODS DRINK WHISKEY by Stephen Asma and I enjoyed the pictures very much. Honestly though, I just don't think he gets it. That author, I mean. Not John. He might get it. Too soon to tell I suppose. It seems odd that a guy with a PhD wouildn't get it and it seems rather presumtuous of me to say so, I suppose. I better just shut up. Peace and love, Dan > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Aug 12, 2010, at 12:45 AM, Dan Glover wrote: > >> Hello everyone >> >> I've been away working in the dirt and despite other intentions >> thinking quite a bit. Reading over them, these thoughts seem a bit >> jumbled but I want to try and get them down while they seem fresh in >> my mind. Please forgive any inconsistencies; this is a very rough >> draft. >> >> Khoo, in a recent post, mentions the potential value of marrying East >> and West when it comes to philosophy. I agree; so let's in an effort >> to clarify both the MOQ and the Book of Changes compare both >> documents: >> >> The language of the Book of Changes (BOC) is a method of >> differentiation, as is the language of the MOQ. Any method of >> differentiation can be seen as a process where the point is to define >> a particular "something" amongst many. This process acts to zoom in on >> a "something," to isolate it, and zoom in further to acquire details >> where the details themselves become "somethings." >> >> This process reflects the use of recursion, where, as the process >> concentrates focus on a something, it differentiates within the >> previously differentiated and so on, and from there identifies the >> contents of that something until all elements, all parts, of the >> something have been clearly defined and in doing so has that >> something, as a whole, been identified. >> >> "In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided >> into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social >> patterns and intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all >> there are. If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic, >> Biological, Social and Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing," >> that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any >> encyclopedia, is absent." [LILA] >> >> The MOQ states that reality can be sorted into four evolutionary >> levels. That's all there is. The BOC, on the other hand, uses 64 >> hexagrams to describe reality. Since we cannot possibly map "all there >> is" in a 1:1 format, the BOC as well as the MOQ must predominately use >> analogy and metaphor to describe "all there is." The MOQ is a map that >> describes the territory. It is not the territory itself. How could it >> be? Reality shifts and changes constantly. As soon as we nail it down, >> poof, it is gone. >> >> Looking to the four levels of the MOQ, it seems that as we move from >> the lower levels to the upper we move from the general to the >> particular. Just as every biological pattern of value is also an >> inorganic pattern but not all inorganic patterns are biological, every >> social pattern is an intellectual pattern but not all intellectual >> patterns are social. The hallmark of intellect is discrimination. This >> discrimination applies to the hexagrams in the BOC as well. Starting >> at the baseline, all four levels of the MOQ can be seen within each >> hexagram. >> >> Each hexagram of the BOC can be seen as complete in itself yet in the >> language of the BOC, each hexagram is entangled within the context of >> all other hexagrams. In the language of the MOQ, each level is >> entangled within the context of all other levels to make up the whole. >> Each level will contribute an expressiveness to any other level. And >> that expressiveness is only describable by analogy to the >> characteristics of some other level. Since, like the BOC, the MOQ is >> supposed to contain "all there is" it should be able to include >> itself. I'd like to take some time and explore how it does that, as >> well as how we can define a level through the association of all other >> levels. >> >> "This classification of patterns is not very original, but the >> Metaphysics of Quality allows an assertion about them that is unusual. >> It says they are not continuous. They are discrete. They have very >> little to do with one another. Although each higher level is built on >> a lower one it is not an extension of that lower level. Quite the >> contrary. The higher level can often be seen to be in opposition to >> the lower level, dominating it, controlling it where possible for its >> own purposes." [LILA] >> >> In the language of the MOQ, each successive level can be seen as in >> opposition to the lower. This gives us two semantic poles to a level's >> definition. This duality of opposition runs within each level as well >> as in between each level. For example, starting with the inorganic >> level as a base line, we transition into biological patterns of value >> that take inorganic patterns and usurp them to their own purposes. >> >> Transitioning to social patterns of value, we see how biological >> patterns are usurped and used by the Giant for its own purposes... we >> only have to think of the human resource department at any >> corporation. In addition, within the social level, religions have >> played a major role in in the advancement of science (which is nothing >> but the obliteration of the old ways) as well as in never-ending war >> and bigotry. >> >> And finally, intellectual patterns value freedom from any social >> constraints. But there's discord within the intellectual level too. >> For instance, subject/object metaphysics is seen as a high quality >> system of pattern of value. SOM proposes that reality is composed of >> subjects and objects. Period. >> >> But the MOQ opposes it in that SOM presupposes value lies in either >> the subject or the object, or both, since subjects and objects are all >> there is. The MOQ states that subjects and objects arise from Quality, >> not the other way around. In the MOQ, reality is composed of patterns >> of value rather than subjects and objects. >> "But although the four systems are exhaustive they are not exclusive. >> They all operate at the same time and in ways that are almost >> independent of each other." [LILA] >> >> Each level is a representation, or a set, of qualities. Each level >> represents a quality extracted from the duality of opposition. In one >> sense, we might look at the MOQ as an exponentiation reflecting the >> application of an opposing set of relationships within each level, >> with each level embedded within a context set by the previous. In >> building our understanding of reality in this manner, we move from the >> general to the particular. This is but half the story though, if we >> include a focus on going "down" once we reach the top of the MOQ >> hierarchy. >> >> Due to the manner in which the hexagrams of the BOC are formed, each >> is in fact made up of its own nature plus the input of all other >> levels. And in the MOQ, when we focus on any one level, what is >> reflected is the influence of context on the expression of some >> archetype through that context. In other words, we can consider each >> level like a hexagram, as having a spectrum made up of influences from >> all other levels, seen through the context of the level under >> consideration. It seems plausible to consider that this Dynamic >> differentiation is how the MOQ includes an expression of itself within >> itself, as does the BOC. A book contains itself, of course. >> >> "So what the Metaphysics of Quality concludes is that all schools are >> right on the mind-matter question. Mind is contained in static >> inorganic patterns. Matter is contained in static intellectual >> patterns. Both mind and matter are completely separate evolutionary >> levels of static patterns of value, and as such are capable of each >> containing the other without contradiction.' [LILA] >> >> Matter starts as an idea, a static intellectual pattern of value. An >> idea starts in the mind, a static inorganic pattern of value. These >> separate evolutionary levels define each other by their opposition. >> Looking to the BOC, each hexagram is constructed of bits of >> information encoded in lines representing complementary features of >> reality. Each hexagram is an idea that defines itself through the >> opposition of other hexagrams as well as the lines themselves. >> >> Tired now, >> >> Thanks for reading, >> >> Dan >> 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/md/archives.html > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
