[MD] MoQ as religion

[David Harding]

Hi to you all.

Heather Perella wrote:
> Ian, Kevin, and others,
>    
>        Ian said:  "(SA, to any good 20th or 21st century "scientist", atoms and hormones
> are hugely complicated things evolved from much simpler beginnings.
> Information is one such plausible "beginning". And don't forget,
> everything may evolve from these, but that is not a simple
> reductionist causal argument - not everything "consists" or is "made
> up from" or "caused by" these things. Evolution is more sophisticated,
> more "strange-loopy" emergent than that.)"
>    
>        Are you pointing towards what I mentioned as scientists not recognizing thought or to scientists we are hormones and such?  Psychologists recognize thought, but where is a thought?  Is it material, thus, all in the brain tissue?  And in what way will they approach thought?  Like a philosopher?  Not yet.  This difference is what I was referring to when I said a scientist doesn't recognize thought.  I guess I meant in the way a philosopher does.  In the case of changing SOM to MOQ one may say Pirsig was as all philosophers were and are - the original psychologists.  As to where is thought and can a scientist point to it?  Well, can anybody point to something that merges with DQ?

Yes,

Point to the wall beside you.  There's something that 'merges' with DQ.  In my view, walls 'merge' with DQ the same way thoughts do.  But to me 'merge' is a slippery word as it can be confused with 
simple addition and dynamic quality cannot be added to anything. It's already there to begin with.

>        
>    
>        As to what you said Kevin, I now notice not just thought, but trust, as you mentioned, is a concept wrapped with belief.  Why is the static (thought for example) and dynamic wrapped with belief?   Anything that emerges from dynamic quality, even if static for somebody else, but dynamic to me (meaning I have not been able to define this anything) is, if any pursuit of wisdom or static quality 
is to occur, something to belief may happen.  Even if trust comes into play that there will always be dynamic quality still, thus, something undefined in this pursuit of ours.
>    

There is no trust necessary.

Kevin said:

"But DQ is meaningless apart from the MoQ."

How do you know this? Can you prove it? Show me that DQ is meaningless without the MOQ.  If you think for long enough I'm sure you'll discover that you cannot and that your actually making the mistake 
of claiming DQ to be something it is not.

The mistake in this case is a subtle one.  You've actually used the logical rule of negation on DQ which can't be done because DQ is not 'something' to be negated.   You've said "DQ IS NOT XYZ" and 
thus defined Dynamic Quality.

Cheers,

David.

>    
>   Thanks,
>   SA
>   
>  
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
> 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/
> 
>