there is a lot of 'male', single context thinking in this thread... you seem to be dissapearing into 'ga-ga' land. Fundamentalism. Platonism and the 'safety' of traditions. The seeking of 'clarity', of 'perfect' identification and so a STATIC position. An archetypal position that favours reproduction through likemindedness, asexual/androjyne processes. >From the local context, the 'raw' individual Quality is subjective and so, according to the Q=M concept, is morality. Likemindedness favours forming groups, loose associations, and in doing so generalising quality and so morality. Introduce DIFFERENCE and things start to change, quality, and so morality, becomes 'fuzzy'. Likeminded groups fracture and some 'digest' the difference, incorporate it, and so difference becomes sameness. Other groups fight difference and so difference emerges WITHIN and BETWEEN groups. These differences WITHIN/BETWEEN groups will change reproduction from asexual/androjyne to sexual, from the pure but eventually 'sterile' seeking/maintaining of purity to the increase in diversity through mixing. This leads to even more fracturing for some but then these sub-groups in turn meet others and so more mixing, there is FLOW here, DYNAMICS; oscillations. The world of dynamics lacks quantitative precision, we have to work with qualitative precision through pattern matching and the exageration of boundaries etc; this is the world of playing with HARMONICS. This world it is all 'too fast' since its emphasis is on CHANGE and so we try and slow it down by creating our own little unchanging worlds. Harmonics analysis comes with 'good patterns' and 'bad patterns'; the aesethically pleasing is linked to particular patterns which seem to emerge from the middle of 'too little'/'too much' and refining the identifications leads to the blurring of the boundaries, the distinctions become 'mixed' and out of that comes different expressions of quality. It is noteworthy that that part of our brain most sensitive to harmonics processing is also that part of our brain sensitive to qualitative precision and the subjective and the dynamic; relational space processing. The world of dynamics is also tied to metaphors, metonomy and analogy. In this world quality does not EQUAL morality; they are not the 'same' as interpreted in a purist, single context perspective. At the local level a 'law' as in 'thou shalt not..' is an expression of a 'preferred choice' that becomes a quality and that BECOMES 'morality'. There is a metaphor here where underlying species-wide survival patterns, developed over billions of years of heuristics are identified and given a teleological emphasis but this emphasis is not 'real' but more the better form or EASIER form of description until something else comes along. This teleological element seems to emerge when we humans move from a reactive emphasis in dealing with reality to a proactive emphasis which includes asking 'what is BEHIND that?". We start to create maps. This leads to the 'sense' of Morality being the 'refined' metaphor to describe quality which is in itself tied to the 'yin/yang' of harmonics processing; 'musical' laws. The subjectivity of this is in the expressions of music on the planet at this time - MANY. Morality is tied to 'law' and as such is tied to relational space (typal) more so than object space (archetypal). Thus morality HAS TO CHANGE and in doing so forms groups where the older see the younger as 'immoral' (or too moral? :-)) The moment you impose morality so you 'kill' it in that you have made it STATIC. Interestingly, if you take a 'chaotic' pattern created by a particular cellular automata and apply 'purist' rules to it, i.e. filter the output by only allowing for 'pure' elements to pass, so can emerge PURE form. (e.g. see http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/stegan.html ), but they are STATIC (but then they have to be!). Since our methods of analysis include the oscillation of the brain as it attempts to identify, so applying a negative filter to the dynamics can lead to the encountering of 'pure' forms 'in here' but these are DEAD and can be associated with the METHOD of analysis. Note that the METHOD is biased to PURE emphasis and so favours an archetypal emphasis. In the process of development, any 'new' lifeform born into a context will, over generations, develop stronger and stronger feedback loops with that context until one 'day' a 'map' of the context is internalised such that the lifeform moves from reactive states to proactive states. The map enables prediction and so HABITUATION. This process leads to the total intergration of the lifeform with the LOCAL context, so much so that the SAMENESS emphasis emerges where there is no perceived unknown danger to the lifeform, text and context become 'one'. This is STATIC at the non-local level and most lifeforms 'under' ours are dying out since they lack DYNAMICS at the species level of being able to change adaptions in 'realtime' to avoid extinction. Included in the above mentioned feedback loops will be heuristically-created 'good' patterns and 'bad' patterns, which, once part of the internalised MAP become proactive goals to reach/avoid and as such are interpreted as being PART of the CONTEXT and can be interpreted as having existed PRIOR to the emergence of the lifeform. Not necessarily so. The distinction of static/dynamic is a dichotomy and for all dichotomies the 'best' position to be in is at the '/' - IOW the middle that is full of potentials and rich choices in behaviour; go too static and you become rigid, a very identifiable form but also 'dead'. Go too dynamic and you gain lots of 'culture' with an emphasis in change, but in doing so you lose identity, the 'core' sense of 'self' in that identity is derived from your context. Thus a 'moral' human is one intergrated with the local context, has become 'cultured' but the price is a loss in adaptability skills; change the context and that human is VERY much 'out of place'. The intergration in fact reflects an unconscious 'shift' to a STATIC position, where the DYNAMICS are so tied to the LOCAL context that the human & context have been encapsulated and become 'archetypal'. Developmentally the 'middle' position is the 'best', a position that is both static and dynamic in that there is always oscillations at work as we reactively and proactively work with the context and even change contexts but at the same time can be 'still' if required. Thus 'stillness' and the archetypal is not a goal, it is a potential behaviour possibly required for a specific time period in a particular context. Thus 'stillness' is rich in quality as well as having none, being 'dead'. Just as randomness and the miraculous share the same space where the qualitative calls the tune mapping the 'thing' to the context, so the relationship of stillness to context is the same and it is the intergration with the context that determines the degree of qualitative assessment; the longer you stay in the context proactively the higher the qualitative assessment (even if seen from outside as illusion/delusion) Thus the assertion that "[if] Quality is the primary reality of the world then that means morality is also the primary reality of the world" is taken 'out of context', it is a generalisation made within an intergrated context and so is 'inevitable' and yet very LOCAL. The statement itself reflects archetypal thinking at work; a more 1:1 pattern where, as outlined above there seems to be a levels difference between the terms when you get down to precision in that Quality and Morality are not equal, Morality is a sense that allows for the 'refinement' of quality through the application of 'rules', of 'patterns', of 'harmonics'. Morality is thus the particularisation of quality, morality gives quality a 'pointedness' about it. Morality acts to concentrate, to distill, to condense, approximations into precision, into 'correctness', but in doing so returns morality to being local; we are back where we started but with a little more 'refinement'. This oscillating process, that in turn reflects hierarchic development where the raw is refined and that in turn becomes the raw for the next development, shows we are beyond single context thinking. best, Chris. MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
