Hi Dan, Thanks for your thoughtful response. As you can imagine this website did take some time so I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to give it.
Please see responses below: > I'd say you could drop the first in 'starts with experience first.' > Redundant. I might also go with 'Rather than subjects and objects > being primary,' etc. Reads better. If Dynamic Quality is undefined, > how do you know it is always new and unexpected? Lila: “Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source of all things, completely simple and always new.” But you might say - how do you know it’s unexpected? I think you can define Dynamic Quality by what it is not. Dynamic quality is not an expected pattern. It is always unexpected. This is supported by RMP in Lila: 'If you think about this question long enough you will come to see that the same kind of division between Dynamic Quality and static quality that exists in the field of morals also exists in the field of art. The first good, that made you want to buy the record, was Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality comes as a sort of surprise.' > Social quality > patterns are cooperation exhibited by higher primates? What about the > birds and the bees? How about ant colonies? How do you know higher > primates exhibit social patterns? Are you a monkey? A great ape? Or > are you human? From LC: In Lila, societies are quite separate patterns that emerge from and are superimposed upon of organic bodies of people, but they are not combinations of these organic bodies of people. DG: The combination of biological bodies of people might be called a mob. A mob is not a social pattern any more than an ant colony. RMP: Although the word “mob” to me has a connotation of social destructiveness. Just “group” seems better. I’m a human who knows what social quality is. So does RMP from LC: "A social pattern which would be unaware of the next higher level would be found among prehistoric people and the higher primates when they exhibit social learning that is not genetically hard-wired but yet is not symbolic.” > I would say the law is a set of intellectual patterns, not an example > of social patterns. The law has been codified and modified > intellectually. The law is not an example of social patterns. But it governs how social patterns behave. > You say: "What’s fundamental isn’t objects or the assumptions we have > about their existence but the quality which creates all these things > to begin with." But I thought the MOQ starts with experience. Are you > saying experience and quality are synonymous? Yes - evidently. From LC: In a subject-object metaphysics, this experience is between a preexisting object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no pre-existing subject or object. Experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous. > Ah! Here you say: "Quality isn't something one thinks about > intellectually. It's something everyone experiences. It is experience > itself." But what about intellectual quality patterns? Ideas? Don't we > think about them? You seem to be bundling all patterns together here. Yes -as does RMP when he uses the capitalised Q for Quality: "Since in the MOQ all divisions of Quality are static, it follows that high and low are subdivisions of static quality. “Static” and “Dynamic” are also subdivisions of static quality, since the MOQ is itself a static intellectual pattern of Quality.” > You say: "The purpose of life is to live the best life possible." If a > person is living the best possible life, haven't they cut themselves > off from Dynamic Quality? Since their life is the best it can be, > there's no possibility of anything better. Yes, but whose imposing that restriction on Quality? Of course, this is the Code of Art where Dynamic Quality is always better than that which is defined old and static. > You say: "But if we're alive we're able to respond to Dynamic Quality > and in terms of it - we are completely free." Here you seem to be > making Dynamic Quality into some kind of object, something to be > desired. Prior, you say Dynamic Quality is undefined but here you > speak of terms of it. Aren't you defining it? Yes in a way. But there’s a Metaphysics with which it is based. So rather than not say anything we given it a partial definition to talk about it to other people. This is explained at the start of Lila where RMP describes the experience of Dynamic Quality, how it fits in with the Brujo and what it is and is not. Once he does this he then states: "Slowly at first, and then with increasing awareness that he was going in a right direction, Phaedrus’ central attention turned away from any further explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned toward the static patterns themselves." > Anyway, cool graphics. Thank you, Thanks again, David. 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
