Well written Mark.
Just a reminder and maybe a hint for Tuuka:
The division DQ/SQ in the 3-dimensional system of energy, mass and
value is giving the force vector. Any divergence in the result from the
division in each one of the three from 1, too much or too little, is
added to the sum and the vector will point in the direction where the
divergence is at most. Next event will follow this until the value is
changed.
Jan-Anders
Mark wrote 2011-03-09 04.36:
Hi T.
I am but one contributor to this discussion, so in terms of ways of
speaking, there is often debate on that subject itself. There is a
dogmatic side to this forum, which along with other things states that
Quality should not be defined. Since this makes any conversation
difficult except in general terms, I do not abide by this rule.
This is the way I see it: Dynamic Quality is thus named because it
has a vector component to it. Whether this be circular or harmonic or
simply directional is obviously up to interpretation. However, an
attribute of dynamism implies change. For such change to be perceived
by us, we use a reference. The use of such a reference implies that
we can scale Quality. Such scaling could imply (by analogy) a better
or worse.
Using math, a sometimes useful way for me to see dynamic quality is as
a wave function. Such a function oscillates between highs and lows.
If one resorts to this analogy, once could see both positive and
negative expressions of Quality. As I have stated in other posts, it
could be considered as all good, just graded valuations of such. Hope
this answers your question.
Lila is meant to create thinking. It is not a breakfast that has a
defined menu. There are some who point to Lila to explain their
interpretations of truth. However, the interpretation of MoQ is left
up to the individual. You will find support and denial of ideas. Any
dogma is agreed on and therefore dynamic.
I have heard the analogy that we dip our ladle into the stream of
Quality and get experience (or something similar). This is a fine
analogy, except that it is also true that the ladle, the manner of
dipping, and the one doing the dipping is also part of Quality. In
terms of the infinite set theories, I am still working that one out.
My example of the "set of all sets", is more just simple set theory.
This particular example is similar to a map within a map..., or a
reflection of a reflection... It points to the limits of logic.
While some may believe in mathematical realism, it is difficult to say
exactly what such a thing is. Indeed, Hawking wrote a book called:
God Created the Integers. Now, is God mathematical or somewhere
else? I prefer to take the view that math is an intellectual
creation, and as such has its embedded flaws. Such flaws are often
seen as paradoxes. Paradoxes may point to the limits of the math
system as it currently exists. These are often overcome by more
self-referencing, and as such lead us to believe that math lies
outside of us. It is more a matter of perspective than anything else.
Cheers,
Mark
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Mark, and thanks for your response!
>
> Is it an established way of speaking that Dynamic Quality can also have a
> negative apparition?
>
> My opinion is that while Lila is a good book for introducing MOQ to someone,
> it is a poor reference book, and I and my friend have been working on
> formulating some sort of a exact and clear expression of what the MOQ is
> about, insofar as it can be expressed.
>
> Could you present your analogy regarding infinite set theory? Or have you
> done so elsewhere?
>
> You say:
>
> "Logical truths are built on a self referential system which cannot achieve
> perspective from the outside."
>
> Agreed. In MOQ, acts whose quality is not determined by a moral system
> consisting of static intellectual value actually can have Quality, or they
> can lack Quality, but when dealing with logical systems, if a statement is
> undecidable, nothing can be stated about its truth value - unless we believe
> in mathematical realism. And even if we do, we apparently can't say anything
> very logical about the truth value.
>
>
> -Tuukka
>
>
>
> 8.3.2011 18:19, 118 kirjoitti:
>>
>> Hi T,
>> I believe you are touching on a distinction between Quality and Truth,
>> and your analogy is interesting. ?Using this form of analogy, Truth
>> denotes an end point, whereas Quality denotes a tendency. ?Logical
>> truths are built on a self referential system which cannot achieve
>> perspective from the outside. ?That is, they come full circle back to
>> the original assumptions, which must stand alone. ?So, the assumption
>> is "proved" by the assumption and that is where the notion of
>> inconsistency, and unprovability comes in. ?It would seem that Quality
>> describes a dynamic tendency. ?So I would change your sentence to say
>> "if the act tends towards good, it is Dynamic Quality in its positive
>> apparition. ?I have a similar analogy to yours which uses the rules
>> (assumptions) of infinite set theory. ?A good example is the set of
>> all sets. ?By definition, a set cannot encompass itself. ?This applies
>> to the encompassing principle of Quality being everything (as a
>> truth).
>>
>> It is important to keep in mind that our intellectual expression is a
>> creative process. ?We cannot find truths, only create them.
>>
>> ?All in my opinion of course.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko
>> <[email protected]> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> It would be rather simple to argue that the dynamic-static-division in
>>> MOQ
>>> is some sort of an informal application of G?del's incompleteness
>>> theorems.
>>> According to these theorems, any sufficiently powerful logical system
>>> cannot
>>> prove it's own completeness unless it is inconsistent. And if a system
>>> cannot prove it's own completeness, there are statements in the system
>>> which
>>> cannot be proven true or false. Some sources (Wikipedia, "G?del, Escher,
>>> Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid") claim that these statements are true but
>>> unprovable, but I'm under the impression that this is not the case.
>>> Instead,
>>> their truth value cannot be determined. If others are in doubt, I can
>>> investigate this further.
>>>
>>> What happens if you change "true" and "false" into "good" and "evil"? A
>>> "logical system" turns into an intellectual static value pattern, and an
>>> unprovable statement turns into an act whose moral value cannot be
>>> determined from within the system. And if the act is good, it is Dynamic
>>> Quality. This is MOQ. Right?
>>>
>>> -Tuukka
>>> 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
>
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
