[MD] subject / object logic

[MarshaV]

At 11:00 AM 8/30/2007, Ron wrote:
>which I interpret to mean static value and dynamic value are differing
>types of value.
>Value or quality is an umbrella term to cover many meanings. The mistake
>I see is when
>one places static value before subjects and objects in lieu of dynamic
>value.
>I believe doing this gives a false interpretation of a moral universe.

Hi Ron,

That's why I like to reference Quality, which is both Dynamic and 
static.  Quality (Dynamic and static) is dynamic.  I could add that 
experience is process which is Quality.  Differentiation is process 
which is Quality.  Or I could just say you had to be there...

I would also like to remind you that I didn't suggest s/o should be 
dropped.  I stated, 'This s/o dualistic point-of-view is sometimes 
useful for solving problems in the way that we do, but still not 
reality.'  We no longer set up problems from the pov that the sun and 
planets revolve around the earth.  We no longer set up problems from 
the pov that the earth is flat. And I can imagine a day when this new 
worldview alters the way we hypothesize scientific problems.  Isn't 
it already true that Science understands that the observation process 
influences the experiment?  And aren't time and space much more 
complicated than we presently understand?

Marsha