Hello everyone On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:32 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ron: >> Hello Dan, >> I mean inorganic, organic, social and intellectual betterness. >> Unless you do not think Quality and betterness have the same meaning. > > Dan: > No, not in this context. You are talking about static patterns of > value. Dynamic Quality is what's better. It is what drives static > quality patterns towards "betterness," an undefined "somethingness" > that isn't a thing at all. Once defined, it is gone... poof. Like a > puffy white cloud in a clear blue summer sky... now it is here, now it > is not. Where does it come from, and where does it go? It is a > meaningless question. It is not a place at all. We are using > intellectual concepts to point to that which is beyond conception. How > can there be four when there isn't even one? > > Ron: > I think of static patterns of value as a history of betterness. > A biography of the good. The memory of dynamic betterness.
Dan: Yes that sounds good. >Ron: > I think when we think of DQ as a mover and SQ as the object moved > we kinda move toward an objective way of conceptualization again. Dan: No. We cannot think of Dynamic Quality as a mover. Dynamic Quality must be kept concept-free. >Ron: > Then contemplating betterness is meaningless, a exercise > in relativism. Dan: That's not what I mean at all. When we say something is better, we do so in relation to something else. The Buddhist notion of dependent-arising might be useful here. >Ron: > How do you conceptualize static Quality? Dan: By labeling it, by giving it a name. And that is the danger when discussing Dynamic Quality. Even giving it a name is going too far. > > >>X: >> I tend to think of them as having a sameness in meaning. >> >> which can be another topic altogether. > > Dan: > I recall a discussion with Paul Turner along these lines that was > never really resolved, at least not in my mind. I am not sure it can > be. > >>X: >> what does Quality mean to you? > > Dan: > > Quality is experience. There are many ways of ordering experience. So > far, the MOQ provides the clearest, most expansive answers to my way > of thinking. I like the way it is presented. Its sense of marrying the > mystic to the mundane appeals to me. The congruence of art, science, > and religion are made clear in a way I was not aware of before. > > Ron: > Thats because, I think, that the awakening to betterness, is the awakening > of care. Dan: Of course. We have to care to see what is better. Thank you, 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
