Let's see if I can inject some MoQ into this one... On 7/16/12, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jul 16, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 16, 2012, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Then again, I get the impression that the MOQ asserts (or at least the >>> MOQ of LILA; the simple "everyday affairs" version for the Western >>> philosophologist) that ALL static entities (can) respond to DQ; from >>> atoms through to plants, from brown bears to human beings. As such, >>> maybe Andre's "DQ/sq" substitution makes Protagoras's original statement >>> too wide. And, as you know with Marsha's use of the word "ghost", once >>> the referring subjects for a term become too wide, then, in effect (i.e. >>> in practice), the word becomes useless.
Oh dear... DQ is not something one responds to. DQ IS the response. We really should not make DQ into a thing. Just a suggestion... >> >> >> Marsha V stated July 16th: >> >> Except that man's experience of ALL static entities from atoms to plants >> to brown bears to other human beings is filtered through the >> restrictions/measurement of... his own consciousness (mind and senses.) >> >> >> Ant McWatt comments: >> >> That's right Marsha. It is indeed a high quality idea that "man's >> experience of ALL static entities from atoms to plants to brown >> bears to other human beings is filtered through the >> restrictions/measurement of his own consciousness." >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ant. Mark frustratingly says: No! No! No! That is not a high quality idea! One canot separate Man from his experiences for that just leads to a false dichotomy that the West has. One of the results of MoQ is to point out that man creates experience, that is Quality in action. Man IS those static entities because he creates them. That is why they are ghosts (you know, like Casper :-)). > > Hello Ant, > > "Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. > Consciousness can be described as a process of > defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions > emerge, they are static patterns and no longer > apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly > that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable > and undefinable because definition never > exhausts it." > (LILA's CHILD, Annotation 57) Mark: Yes exactly! Definitions are an act of creation. When we build a building, that structure does not define the act of its construction, it is just a building. BTW, every single "thing" is infinitely definable. DQ is not special there. This is because we create these definitions and can continue to create them as long as we want. Show me one thing that is fully defined, and I will show you stuckness. > > Marsha: > I didn't state that anything but value comes first. My comment was directed > toward the consciousness (concepts and percepts) connection. In the quote, > the connection does not point to any particular static level. > > But, of course, ultimately the fundamental nature of static quality is > Dynamic Quality: > > not this, not that. Mark Again... Yes, you cannot point to Dynamic Quality, but that is not its fundamental nature. Not one bit! I am not sure why you keep saying that. It is NOT "not this, not that". > > Mark, the meek. > > > > > > > > > > > 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
