Greetings Mark, I think it might be time to float this quote once again:
"The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of quality is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence his final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual value judgments but not complete uniformity." (RMP, SODV) Marsha: Because I see it differently; for me, static patterns of value are processes, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized, that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. Within the MoQ, these patterns are morally categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns: patterns depend upon ( exist relative to) innumerable causes and conditions (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) parts and the collection of parts (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) conceptual designation (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent existence. Further, these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static pattern of life history. Yet I can still agree that static quality is in some sense real as rain. The rain, tree, the squirrel and even squirrel nuts are conventionally real. Marsha On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:06 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi Joe, > I will do my best to try to explain, but any meaning in my words must > come from you who bring them alive when you read them. > > Our interpretation of aliens from another planet is often an > anthropomorphic rendition of such beings. For indeed, light from the > sun can be considered an alien species. It certainly does not think > as we do. Yet, it exerts free will, makes choices, and is of the same > morality we are made of. So, it is less alien than we may think. > > Man has created a large intellectual paradigm through which we look at > the world. For example when we view an acorn tree, we bring in all > sorts of related impressions to give such a tree more meaning. This > means we break the tree down into related categories which allow us to > tie this vast web of created ideas together and bring such > understanding of our reality into fruition. However, it would seem > that a chipmunk does this a different way. When such a creature sees > an acorn tree, he is not one to view the species of plant or to > discern number of branches and height. When this animal sees an acorn > tree, he may think "I am hungry" and scamper up the tree. > > This possible difference in awareness is a difference between > contemplative awareness, and a direct awareness. For the chipmunk is > in direct communication between what is presented him, and the > feelings within his body. When we create a body of contemplation, we > are (in a way) separating ourselves from DQ. While this is not > entirely a correct way to put things, such a statement is within the > format provided by MoQ and allows us to build on such metaphysics. > > The ability to conceptualize frees us from the moment to moment > interaction with that which is coming through our senses. We get to > go sit on the beach for a while. The brain is highly redundant and > has numerous feedback systems which allows for an incoming signal to > be processed and amplified. This processing is an act of creation > more than it is simplification. I have heard it said that there are > as many connections within a single brain as there are stars in the > universe. Whether this is the case or not, such an evaluative phrase > tells us that it is highly complex, perhaps more complex than the > incoming signals, which are limited by the sensory apparati we have. > > Of course our attentive consciousness, that part of consciousness that > we operate through in the intellectual level, is a small part of this > brain function, and is present so that we can simplify and provide > direction to survival. However, if the complexity of the brain is > indeed greater than the incoming signals, this would men that we can > actually add to such signal, and make it more complex. Our brains are > therefore more than what we sense, and add a new dimension to the > sensory world. > > Thus, there is no reason to deny the importance of sq as something > which is not the real thing, for it is very real, as real as any > incoming sensory system. It is just a haven for mulling things over. > Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad. But it is never > inconsequential or something that we do not want. > > There, I hope your logic button is somewhat pacified. > > Cheers, > Mark > > On 2/19/12, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Mark, >> >> This sentence hit my logic button, particularly the phrase "Other species >> who must constantly be in tune with DQ." I am unclear what "other species" >> mean. Are these aliens from other planets or individuals on our own planet? >> I can not follow when DQ is unrelated to self awareness. I reserve self >> awareness to sentient beings. Animal instincts being mechanical do not >> qualify for a DQ category. SQ evolution identifies levels in existence. >> DQ/SQ. >> >> Joe >> >> >> On 2/18/12 4:17 PM, "118" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Much as some like to disparage words, they do bring meaning into our lives >>> and separate us from other species who must constantly be in tune with DQ. >>> Concepts give us a reprieve from such moment to moment directives. >> >> ___ 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
