Hello everyone On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:39 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron > You're making the classic mistake here equating illusion with non-existence. > Illusions exist - they just aren't what we assume they are. They are > representations of reality, not reality itself. > Static patterns are all about illusions - DQ is a release from illusions, the > cutting edge of the real. > Static patterns are the fallout of DQ - an echo of the real. > So when you insist that free-will is real, based upon static patterns, you are > equating the illusion with the reality it represents. > Static patterns are how we deal with reality. > SQ is not DQ. > > Ron: > It would seem that way at first, as I percieved Dan using the term, it gave > the > effect of non existence, > that static patterns of value have no choice, that "choice" is in reality non > existent. > I agree that all static patterns are illusions, illusions being a distortion, > exaggeration or simplification > of a "reality" but that does not mean that it does not exist. > However I disagree that DQ is a release from illusion. If static patterns are > how we deal, percieve and > experience then all we may ever understand of DQ is going to be a static > representation.
Dan: All we may intellectually understand of Dynamic Quality is a static quality representation, yes. But there is a Dynamic understanding that comes before that... Whitehead's dim apprehension of we know not what, RMP's pre-intellectual awareness/direct experience. >Ron: > Doesent it then make sense to carefully derrive the primary meaning of DQ in > static terms? Dan: No, not in this case. We may define Dynamic Quality by what it is not, but not by what it is, and not by its meaning in static quality terms. Ron: Arent we > debating the intellectual meaning of the term as it functions within a larger > philosophical system of thought? Dan: No, we are not. Now, I realize lots of people want to do just that, to define Dynamic Quality in efforts to somehow get "closer" to it. And yes, we are using Dynamic Quality as an intellectual term within the framework of the MOQ. But that term should be kept free of all concepts. Better to say "it" is "not this, not that." > >Ron: > SQ is DQ, but when used as explanitory terms within the context of evolution > in > a MoQ yes, they must have > difference in meaning. When we explain WHY some things are better than others, > we say that they > are more dynamic, they are more moral than exclusive rigid unchanging static > dogma. > In this context SQ and DQ denote types of good. What is happening is that > there > is a move from > one context to another in the paragraph Dan is quoting from, but no one is > really pointing that out. > > Except me of course. Dan: That might serve as a clue, Ron, if you let it, that is. Be that as it may, I don't see any shift in context that you are claiming. So far as I can see, RMP is consistent throughout LILA (and any subsequent writings) in equating Dynamic Quality with freedom from any static quality patterns that determine our reality. 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
