[MD] Dynamic Development at all costs?

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Christoffer

Christoffer Ivarsson wrote:
> Hello Magnus
> 
> I tend to feel that something is very weird about dragging metaphysical 
> arguments into political debates, however, historically this has been done 
> quite a lot, and the MoQ, and any metaphysics for that matter, is an 
> interpretation model meant to help us identify and categorize phenomena 
> around us.

It shouldn't be weird, it should be the most natural thing in the world 
to simply ask the most basic theory of our reality about such debates.

Is physics a part of our reality? Yes, ask the MoQ about it.
Are newspapers parts of our reality? Yes, ask the MoQ about it.
Is politics...


> I agree with what you say here (perhaps not surprising)  and 
> would like to ad that the Dynamic aspect as such, DQ in the MoQ, isn't what 
> should be put first or above everything else, and especially not in 
> political debates. Politics (in my book) should be dominated by intellectual 
> patterns  that work towards achieving a Higher Quality Life for mankind - 
> agree?

Yes, it's hard to disagree with something like that. However, I think we 
can generalize it much more than to just apply it to politics. As you 
say, and as the topic says, DQ is not the main goal that everything 
strives to achieve. Q *is*. And since Q is both DQ and SQ, then the goal 
is a good balance of DQ and SQ. Or in more common lingo, it must be 
dynamic enough to change *and* static enough to last.

	Magnus