[Marsha] 2. From a Dynamic Quality (unpatterened) view nothing is right or wrong, better or worse.
[DMB] Claim #2 describes the relativism of SOM, not the MOQ. [Arlo adds] Right. The language here is problematic as well. 'Views' are what we have after we select sand from the endless landscape. If anything, that immediate Dynamic moment is 'pre-view' (which reflects the same sentiment as 'pre-intellectual'). I suppose a revision could be something like "In the immediate moment of Dynamic Quality (pre-intellectually), nothing is right or wrong", which at least uses the words correctly. I suppose she could argue that 'right' or 'wrong' are meant to reflect her 'absolute truth', and sure the whole point of the MOQ is to usurp the notion of absolute truth. But "better or worse"? In the moment of pure Quality, nothing is better or worse? That's more a less a complete rejection of the very metaphysical premises of what "Quality" is: betterness! In that moment of Dynamic Quality, the pre-intellectual, undifferentiated continuum, there is only 'betterness'. It is this 'betterness' from which the static patterns themselves emanate. That's what "of value" mean in the phrase "static patterns of value". "Worseness", I'd argue, emerges only in the conflict between these patterns. Until there is/was conflict, there was no 'worseness'. In the purest sense, two conflicting patterns both 'exist' because there is an inherent 'betterness' (or value) to them. 'Worseness' is contextual and evaluative. 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
