[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/20/00 7:11:26 PM Central Standard Time,Hi Jon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your question goes straight to the heart of the MOQ and of Niels Bohr's
framework of complementarity. We might say Dynamic Quality is the
evolutionary motor yet one we cannot conceive of. We might say Dynamic
Quality is God but not a God we can talk to or pray to or imagine in any
way at all. The harmony we see all around us is our own static quality
harmony and not the harmony of God; of Dynamic Quality. There is nothing
at all that can be said of Dynamic Quality without disturbing it into
something else. If you haven't yet, you should read the Subjects,
Objects, Data and Values paper. That answers your question quite well,
much better than I am able to.
Hi Dan
It gave me pause when you said we can't "imagine Dynamic Quality in any way
at all." I don't understand what you mean. I've always considered Dynamic
Quality something you could sense, like something glimpsed in the corner of
the eye, but never see straight on...like an out-of-focus image in a camera,
when it comes clearly into focus, it becomes then static Quality.Jon
Thank you for your comment. Yes, of course we sense Dynamic Quality, though as you insinuate, it's more non-sensing than actual sensing. That's what gets us off the hot stove... "a vague sense of we know not what." But we cannot describe what it is, for as soon as we do, it is no longer Dynamic Quality.
Dan
