[MD] Intellectual activity

[a steffes]

Gene,
   
  The money is on fire.
   
  What you said is probably a lot more consistent with moq than what I said.
   
  I quess I should of said that all objects are dynamic (before) moq-hierarchical (differentiation). But then they are not yet objects, according to moq. But that just rehashes the obvious. Silly me. But that is not really what I was trying to get at.
   
  Looks like I'm guilty of coloring outside the lines, so to speak. I'm not a "hook line and sinker" adherent to moq, so I take liberties.
   
  My view is that dynamism, as defined by moq, does not exist "out there" somewhere. Dynamism exists everywhere and in all things, such as objects, events, relations, ideas, money, etc. "The world is on fire", as the Bhuddists say. I believe this is consistent with moq. Correct me if I'm wrong.
   
  Therefore, I believe the view that objects, as understood by you and the other knowledgeable people here, are merely static artifacts of a dynamic process (dynamic quality) is a bit lacking.
   
  I understand that objects are defined as static patterns of value. And this implies stability. But I have a hard time accepting this. But perhaps this is my own problem.
   
  I don't see a strong split between the dynamic and the static. 
   
  Therefore my examples will seem less contrasty and more confusing, in terms of the split.
   
  In any case, It's hard for me to pigeonhole money into one static category or another. I'm starting to question what the hell money really is...I think my brain is going to explode.
   
  ayar
   
   
   
  

Gene M <boredandunstable at gmail.com> wrote:
  Thanks Craig! Money really is kind of a weird thing when you think about it,
sort of an all pervading force around us that interacts with all levels of
the MOQ.

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.
>
> ayar



Ayar, I've never thought of it this way before! It's an interesting point of
view. I'm not sure that I fully understand it. Maybe if I explain my point
of view on this you can get a sense of where I'm coming from and clear it up
a bit?

My personal Dichotomy is seperating Reality into Objects and Interactions.
Objects exist on their own, and only come in contact through interactions.
By object I mean both physical and immaterial, ideas are just as much
objects as lawn furniture I feel.

I consider objects as the static, and interactions as the dynamic. So money
could exist as a Static Social Object, but the way it interacts with other
things is Dynamic Quality. Same way a chair is a Static Physical Object, and
stubbing my toe on it is Dynamic Quality, resulting in such static Objects
as a Bruise, Pain, Irritation and quite possibly some cussing.

Essentially, Objects are the Static Quality left by Dynamic Quality, ordered
into the MOQ accordingly.

Hence my confusion over the assertion that Objects are dynamic. Although
it's likely we're using the same words to different ends. In any case, any
help understanding would be appreicated!

-Gene
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/


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