Bulls eye this one , Dan. thanks. 2010/11/2 Dan Glover <[email protected]>
> Hello everyone > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:52 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Horse > > > > Agreed. I see no problem here. But again, this "betterness" that Ron > > is pointing to... I just don't see that there are four kinds, or five, > > as the case may be. They all point to the same underlying idea... that > > there is some "thing" driving static quality patterns of value towards > > freedom. In the MOQ, we call that some "thing" Dynamic Quality. And > > yes, I can see that we are both right and both wrong. I just think it > > is confusing to state that there are four kinds of better, especially > > if we say Dynamic Quality is what's better. Now, we have four kinds of > > Dynamic Quality. I prefer to look towards the commonality of the > > underlying notion of "betterness" guiding the evolutionary history of > > static quality and not posit this "betterness" as part of that. Once > > we do that, we've effectively defined Dynamic Quality. That way, > > stagnation awaits. > > > > Thank you, > > Dan. > > > > Hi , Dan,I understand your concerns. > > They are of importance,no question about it. > > I think i agree on your line of reasoning but allow me to make a remark > > if stagnation awaits,along the path, as well on the forum as irl, it will > be > > a temporary stagnation,...The Giant itself cannot stagnate, with dynamic > > quality as engine. > > The Giant himself will move on, dynamically, without hesitation. > > Hi Adrie > > Or herself. :) > > Yes I understand what you are saying, thank you. From LILA: > > "With the identification of static and Dynamic Quality as the > fundamental division of the world, Phaedrus felt that some kind of > goal had been reached. This first division of the Metaphysics of > Quality now covered the spectrum of experience from primitive > mysticism to quantum mechanics. What remained for Phaedrus to do next > was fill in the gaps as carefully and methodically as he could. > > "In the past Phaedrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic > Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had > always felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. > They offer no promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to > death, since that which does not change cannot live. But now he was > beginning to see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life > can't exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To > cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to > cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality > by studying what it is not rather than futilely trying to define what > it is. > > "Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they > demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static > patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to > protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, > the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these > patterns of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. > Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other." > > Dan comments: > > Two comments stand out... we both static quality and Dynamic Quality > to survive, and blind obedience to either is futile. Rather than > trying to define Dynamic Quality as what it is, we need to look at > what it is not. Great points to keep in mind. > > Thanks again, Adrie. > > 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 > -- parser 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
