[David H.]
> sq and DQ are complete opposites, defined as such
> they push each
> other away. But they aren't opposites in the
> traditional exclusive
> sense, they are opposite qualities. So whilst they
> are opposite,
> because they are qualities they work together.
This I can agree with. A rock is working together
with nothing. The rock and nothing are separate, but
together in the sense they work together. I can
notice dq by looking at a rock. The rock is a static
pattern, but working with the rock is dq. Separate
but working together.
[David H.]
> Right. In my view, this point in which you sit, the
> one of quality
> with no metaphysical distinctions, is dangerous
> because if you talk
> form this perspective and ignore the distinctions of
> the MOQ by
> saying 'sq is DQ' etc., then it is not as sound
> metaphysically as it
> could be.
ok, I agree. But do you experience/or think
sitting where no distinctions is an event? Is this
what you mean below by Quality perspective that can
notice dq and sq.
[David H.]
> Actually, I think it's possible to maintain the
> distinctions of the
> MOQ while looking from perspective of quality where
> 'everything is
> connected' and avoid unnecessary confusion. This
> can be done by
> saying, from the perspective of the MOQ, as a
> qualitative whole there
> is no DQ 'in' sq. I think, according to the MOQ, it
> is better to say
> quality is both sq and DQ. Quality is both sq and
> DQ to the degree
> that they both use the word.
Yes, you say both use the word, but I experience
no distinctions where I sit. These distinctions don't
go away always, but as you say above it is more a
quality sitting of both sq and dq. I'm notice static
patterns, and the distinctions are present, but these
static patterns are together without any separations.
Distinctions and separations are different concepts.
Without separations is dq. Having distinctions is
still no separations, thus dq, but these distinctions
are static patterns.
[David H.]
> I think this emphasises your point without the
> metaphysical mistake
> of thinking DQ is some thing inside sq. We go
> beyond sq and DQ to
> the root of things metaphysically and show they are
> connected, like
> you have tried to, but still maintain their
> separateness.
Yes, as you say here, I said above I believe.
"...show they are connected..." the nonseparation of
dq, "...but still maintain their..." distinctions
(sq).
thanks.
so warm early winter, and now very cold lots of snow,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
