Hi MOQers
Also meant to say that DQ as bringer of all change can work against SQ,
levels can be destroyed or damaged, all SQ sooner or later seems to
return to nothing. Of course DQ gives us all evolution and over coming
of constraint and limitation, civilisation is produced but civilisation and
liveable habitats can also be destroyed, moving things backwards.
I can't see how or why we would not recognise that DQ and openness
has a negative-destructive side, if you oppose this suggestion how
would you describe such devolution in MOQ terms, why does SQ
ever move backwards or to destruction without DQ being the cause?
Again there seems a lot we can say about dynamic qualities and
activity even though we have a lack of patterns whenever openness
rolls out or forwards. Of course, I am discussing SQ and DQ here that
is shown as unfolding in all processes, going beyond the grounding in
human experience, but of course, always based on their grounding
in direct experience. Anyone not interest in seeing SQ and DQ in
this 2nd perspective way need not comment, although I would like
to here how the 1st or primary perspective people can discuss
these issues in their terms, but I think they have lost the right to
deny some of us the right to discuss the MOQ in 2nd perspective
terms too.
regards
David M
-----Original Message-----
From: David Morey
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 5:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [MD] MOQ and SOM, the good and the bad
Hi MOQers
Some thoughts, interested to know who agrees or disagrees:
I think the following:
MOQ says let's discuss experience and see what sense we can make of it.
MOQ warns us against SOM because SOM concepts go beyond what we experience,
dividing everything into subjective and objective aspects and this causes a
number of problems. MOQ says SOM creates a schism in our thinking that is
difficult to fix.
MOQ proposes understanding experience in terms of SQ and DQ. SQ is about
what is patterned, static, repeating, definable as patterns.
DQ is unpatterned, implies change rather than repeats or sameness, implies
emergence and openness. Yes in a sense it is undefinable due to this
openness,
what can you say about the open? It is not the same, it could be open to
anything,
we can't shut it down and limit it. So sure in a sense it is indefinable, it
should not
be seen as constrained, it is the edge of now, it is what is experienced,
the value
and qualities of experience, in so far as these are not static, in as far as
there is
always something new about our on going experiences, new qualities, slight
variation in qualities, location is never quite the same, time is never
simply
the same. In a way it is a miracle there is ever anything we can refer to as
SQ
as so much of experience is really hard to grasp, to see patterns. But is DQ
just simply indefinable? Sort of I guess, as it is not patterned, but we can
certainly say negative things about it, how it is not SQ like, it is
everything
we experience about qualities that are not SQ like. We can certainly
experience
DQ, in nature, art, music, etc. And we can certainly try to talk about it,
to
describe what we feel, in art, in creative writing, poetry, etc. maybe even
in
creative philosophical writing.
I also think that the MOQ is about reality, and the MOQ says ground your
reality in what you really experience, do not get confused by what SOM says
about a wider reality, a reality that goes beyond direct experience. Yet I
also
think that when we come to understanding experience we cannot but help
but ask how to understand the wider world beyond our direct experience.
We easily know that other people experience things we do not or have not
experienced, that there was a time before our individual lives, before our
species or planet existed and times and places that will be long after
our lives, our species, our planet. Now whilst MOQ warns us against
trying to understand reality in SOM terms due to its well know problems,
it does not say we cannot think and discuss how processes, events
and history take place beyond our direct experience. Here I think I
am suggesting something of perspective 2 discussed by Paul Turner.
It seems to me in a post-SOM exploration of perspective 2, it is well
worth trying to talk about processes, events, science and history in
MOQ, DQ, SQ terms that offer an alternative to SOM ways of looking
at and understanding the wider context of human history and life,
which of course means going beyond any idealistic limitation to
just discussing direct experience. I see this as the correct way to
develop MOQ and relate it to such disciplines as cosmology, history
and science. Otherwise these are left to be understood simply in SOM
terms.
How do SQ and DQ relate to the good? Well SQ is all about pattern
and constraint (non-openness). But is SQ good? Well constraint seems
to restrict openness and DQ, is this then bad? Surely not. SQ allows
complexity to be built, it enables levels to develop, it allows latching,
and it allows new freedoms and possibilities to be made actualisable.
Is DQ always good? Freedom is great, but we can also become more
free to do low quality and bad things too. DQ is open to good quality
experiences, but we clearly have bad quality experiences too, and
we surely want more of the former and less of the latter? Due to the
levels of SQ we have clear needs, need for food for example. Biological
SQ, eating food, etc, enable us to be more complex and higher level
and more open beings. it is better to be a person that a dog or a rock.
But SQ creates constraints and demands and reduces our freedom too.
We have to eat to live, to find or pay for food, SQ creates demands
whilst at the same time enables us to enjoy the dynamic freedom
of our complex bodies and activities, including thinking and feeling.
SQ is good, it builds, develops, evolves, grows, but it sets up needs
and constraints. It works against the DQ at lower levels to create
DQ and freedom at higher levels. DQ and experience is higher for
people that for rocks and worms. I think SQ and DQ work together to
build universes and levels so that SQ can develop, emerge and evolve
as processes and experiences, and that this is also raising DQ-experience
up to new levels of free expression, on a scale from atoms to rocks to
plants to worms to persons. I assume MOQ describes the reality of
experience in such a good way it can be applied to processes and
experiences that go beyond the human. If you reject such a story
and perspective what sort of an MOQ are you left with, can you say
nothing about non-human experiences and non-living processes,
do you want to leave these to be understood via a SOM based
science (nothing against science but it could be philosophically
grounded in MOQ rather than SOM suggest). For example all
talk of laws of science seem to be very SOM, as if SQ can explain
everything about processes as if there is no real openness or DQ
in our reality.
So do you agree or disagree with any of the above, and if so why?
All the best
David M
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
