Hi Mark, I would like to start by saying that I think the first division of the MOQ can be summed up thusly:
"Every thing is an analogy of the undefinable Dynamic Quality.' I would have to disagree that the division is something new. It has > long been known in Taoism and various forms of Buddhism. Perhaps the > rhetoric is particularly modern and somewhat misleading by the term > Quality. I don't think the term Quality is misleading. I think it is better than simply Subjects or Objects. > Certainly if you find meaning it will improve your life. > Unfortunately the meaning as expressed is difficult to convey as you > will notice from the posts. The rhetoric is lacking and incomplete > leaving much up to the imagination. This can be good, but a > metaphysics cannot deal with undefined things, that is called > religion. The MOQ solves religious problems, it doesn't avoid them as you seem to want to do here. The Metaphysics of Quality deals with undefined things. It deals with them beautifully. It says that they are so important they form one part of the first division of the MOQ. > > The act of conceiving occurs in the moment (the sub-nanosecond scale), > therefore it is dynamic. The act of conceiving is an act. It is some thing. It is not Dynamic Quality. The fact that you can put it on a scale proves this. > The ever present is dynamic isn't it? Is it > after you are done conceiving that it becomes static? If so, when are > you ever done conceiving, when you are dead? Even if the concept is > the same, it is still happening in the present. Thoughts are > misconstrued as static but they happen actively, that is about as > close to dynamic quality as one can get. It is this perception that > somehow we live in the past tense that leads to an incorrect postulate > of the static. We do 'live in the past tense' as you describe. Unless you are experiencing DQ which is no thing. Not you or I or anything else. But the moment you open your mouth or the moment your mind grasps DQ, or even calls it Dynamic Quality it is static and not Dynamic Quality. > > Objects are an appearance of dynamic Quality, they do not contain > quality in themselves, but express it. There are no patterns of > quality, such a thing does not make sense, a pattern is formed in > one's head. Have you or I or anyone else thought using something which is not a 'pattern formed in your head'? The MOQ describes reality, but it is not reality itself. > We cannot present Quality in a materialist manner as you > rightly point out, but it can be analogized. This was done several > thousand years ago with Tao. I agree. > > Perhaps this doesn't make much sense to you, but it is dynamic quality > at its core. Once MoQ is realized, this is where it leads. Now that > is meaningful. All one has to do is connect the dots. > It makes complete sense and I agree. Dynamic Quality is fundamental in the MOQ. But what are we speaking now? We are speaking concepts which are of course... static. I'm interested to hear what you think.. 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
