[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] The MOQ's First Principle
>Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 21:11:35 -0800 (PST)
>
> > Marsha writes: "I don't understand 'balance'.  I
> > earlier asked Platt about a
> > statement.  It seems to me that's its a perfect
> > statement of
> > balance.  General Peter Pace when asked if the U.S.
> > is winning the
> > war in Iraq responded "We're not winning, but we're
> > not losing
> > either."   So if by balance you mean this kind of
> > sanity, than I am
> > at a loss to understand."

Hi Marsha

The article that you mention went on to say that the US led forces are in a 
sort of lateral drift. Sound familar? Though I doubt this is a good thing in 
regards to a military action.

> >
> > Mike responds:
> > The balance I shoot for is the balance between DQ
> > and SQ. It is a lot like Yin and Yang (as I
> > understand it), except with DQ and SQ,

Hi Mike

I like to think of yin and yang as better represented by romantic quality 
and classic quality as described in ZMM. Dynamic Quality is an intellectual 
label for that which is undefined. I think SA's first principle of freedom 
is apt.

>SA:
>      ok, balance, yet, what is between the levels is
>moral code.  What is between dynamic and static
>quality is code of art: dynamic morality, which is the
>first split of quality, which is quality realizing
>itself.  This is the first principle, yet, with
>dynamic quality involved, this first principle is
>no-principle.  Openended... freedom... yet, always
>moral is this nothing (dq).  Mind that is not
>discriminating mind.  Mind that is not yin and yang.

Hi SA

I read of a tragedy out west in Oregon where a man and his family became 
snowbound when they took a wrong turn. After statically waiting over a week 
and with supplies running low, the man apparently decided to Dynamically 
seek help by setting off on foot. A couple days later his family was rescued 
and it took searchers a few more days to locate the man's body.

Let's examine this using the first principle as you suggest: freedom. Now, 
it's clear the man was acting in a moral manner...he wanted nothing more 
than to save his family. And it seems pretty clear that he was acting in a 
more Dynamic manner by actively seeking help rather than passively waiting 
for it to arrive.

Using the first principle, where did he go wrong?

>
>blue jay,
>SA

power tower,

Dan