[MD] Intellectual activity

[Heather Perella]

Hey Vincent Edison Luther (VEL), and others:


     I hope it's ok that I condensed your name into
VEL for typings sake.  If not, let me know and I'll
figure out another way.

     VEL said:  "When we think about money we are
talking about a
> buch
> of different patterns that fall into different
> levels.
> If we are referring to the physical aspects of
> currency we are describing inorganic patterns (size,
> shape, color, hardness or softness, etc). If we are
> talking about thinking about what to spend money on,
> then we are talking about intellectual patterns
> (patterns of thought). If we are referring to the
> unconscious forces such as celebrity and branding
> that
> influence our buying habits, we are talking about
> social patterns."

     The use of $ is in question, too.  I believe we
were beginning to say that $, the use of it, is a
social pattern.  We also placed $ on the intellectual
level when it comes to the first idea of $ even being
here.  Of course that idea was at one point in time
coming from something dynamic quality and eventually
named and given its' social use, in other words,
social value, for not all cultures would value $ as
the U.S.  Any other statements you have above, I agree
with, too.

> > ayar wrote:
> > >
> > > "I believe that moq implies that all objects are
> > inherently dynamic,
> > > regardless of moq-hierarchical orientation. 
> >Think
> > of moq as a prism that
> > > accepts dynamic input (any object) and outputs
> > discrete bands, as it were,
> > > which may be labeled according to moq (bio,
> socio,
> > etc.) The problem as far
> > > as I can tell is that objects don't come
> > pre-defined (they are dynamic after
> > > all) and any resultant values are largely
> > subjective. In other words,
> > > resultant of what? The process of unfolding
> > reality? Of individual
> > > perception? Of the moq, the whole moq, and
> nothing
> > but the moq? I can't say.
> > >
> > >   In any case, objects don't belong to static
> > categories. Objects are
> > > dynamic."
> 
> 
     VEL responsed to ayar:  "I think the problem here
is that you can't 
> talk
> about
> objects prior to the dynamic/statict split. Once
> you've identified an object, it is already static or
> you couldn't be talking about it."

     Yes, exactly.  Dq is undefined.  Sq is defined. 
And quality is our experience before we begin to
label, Sq, and thus, as SQ/DQ is as a whole is
quality, any experience will have that undefined
quality right along side that static, defined, named,
experience.  Take for example an object.  Ayar said
objects are dynamic.  I would agree that objects are
dynamic.  Physicist are learning something about the
quantum level of physical, inorganic objects all the
time.  Have they named much of these inorganic
objects?  Yes, but as they cut into these objects more
and more, the physical particles that make up the
whole object are understood more and more.  Therefore
these objects have their dynamic quality, and still
have their static quality, too.  Why?  In the end or
the beginning, quality is the experience, which as
Vincent says prior to the split of DQ/SQ we have
plain-old straight talkin' quality. 
 
 
     VEL said:  "Toe stubbing is a pattern of behavior
and therefore
> static. Though if you are the person stubbing his
> toe
> there is both a dynamic and static aspect to the
> experience since pure experience is prior to this
> split."

     Yes, quality.
 
     VEL said:  "I think the interactions you are
talking about are
> still patterns."

     With people these patterns are social, yet, we do
have the neoconservative debate I raise, which I
haven't updated myself on that posting yet.  This
debate outlines a political versus philosophy or in
other words, social level versus intellectual level
influence.  This influence could also be thought of as
interactions.  Therefore interactions occur between
all levels.  These interactions are between patterns
of value, thus, values are only involved.



SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com