[MD] Metaphysical issues: DQ

[Joseph Maurer]

On Wednesday 8 October 2008 10:20 AM Chris writes to all:

 

<snip>

> - I believe that Dynamic Quality should be handled only as that
> part of reality that isn't stable patterns.
> - Stable patterns is the only thing we can talk about in any
> meaningful manner, since we are stable patterns.
> - That other part of reality should not be given ascribed
> anything, not motion, not intent, nothing.
> - However we should say that since everything is Quality,
> Quality is everywhere, both the stable patterns we see and DQ.
> - If we then are to speak about some change, or some "Quality
> Event" in connection to DQ we should say that a new aspect of
> Quality came to us and that it was incorporated into our
> "pattern understanding".
> - And by "came to us" we must not mean that DQ _did_ anything,
> because we cannot say that, that's a SPOV understanding
> - instead we must say that WE did something that made us see
> another aspect of Quality; the Quality that is reality.
> - Thus it follows that no thing, no system, nothing that we can
> talk about or even clearly visualise can be, or have, DQ.

<snip>

Hi Chris and all,

For a metaphysics of DQ/SQ MOQ to replace a SOM metaphysics there must be a
greater clarity and precision of explanation to change something that has
lasted for over 2000 years.

SOM accepts a split into different realities mind/body,
subjective/objective.  MOQ accepts a DQ/SQ undefined/defined structure of an
evolving reality.  

SOM accepts a creating force for the existence of fundamental dual
realities. Through history the analogy God is used for the creating force.
MOQ accepts an analogy of an evolving force, the Big Bang, as expressed by
Magnus in his paper on moq.org, for evolving differences.

IMO  MOQ¹s view of evolution describes DQ evolving into levels.  DQ is an
analogy for an order in existence.  SQ is an order of defined
manifestations. In Pirsig¹s view four levels evolve.  As a singer I use the
musical scale of seven levels as an analogy for evolution.

DQ is an order in existence of evolution.  I agree with Chris that, no
thing, no system, nothing that we can talk about or even clearly visualize
can be, or have DQ.

Joe

On 10/8/08 10:20 AM, "Christoffer Ivarsson"
<IvarssonChristoffer at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Since people keep talking about things as being more or less Dynamic, using
> the term differently and, most notably,  saying that some things that us
> humans may create can be more or less dynamic I feel I need to state my
> position on the matter of DQ:
> 
> - I believe that Dynamic Quality should be handled only as that part of
> reality that isn't stable patterns.
> - Stable patterns is the only thing we can talk about in any meaningful
> manner, since we are stable patterns.
> - That other part of reality should not be given ascribed anything, not
> motion, not intent, nothing.
> - However we should say that since everything is Quality, Quality is
> everywhere, both the stable patterns we see and DQ.
> - If we then are to speak about some change, or some "Quality Event" in
> connection to DQ we should say that a new aspect of Quality came to us and
> that it was incorporated into our "pattern understanding".
> - And by "came to us" we must not mean that DQ _did_ anything, because we
> cannot say that, that's a SPOV understanding - instead we must say that WE
> did something that made us see another aspect of Quality; the Quality that
> is reality.
> - Thus it follows that no thing, no system, nothing that we can talk about
> or even clearly visualise can be, or have, DQ.
> 
> 
> So, SPOVs move around and change in accordance with the cause and effect
> rules that exist, and thus "random" changes occur - for instance a mutation
> in a plant: what happens then is that a new aspect of Quality is manifested
> (is that the right word?) in a stable pattern. DQ became SQ. It may or may
> not have high Static Quality, but nonetheless, what happened was that a new
> aspect of the infinite Q was manifested.
> 
>  Anyway - So what humans do is all static. When we invent new things we get
> mote Q-understanding, and perhaps everything is supposed to move towards the
> ultimate Q understanding that may or may not be becoming DQ.
> 
> 
> That's my take on it, now pick it apart you! =)
> 
> Regards
> Chris 
> 
> 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/