[MD] What a wonderful world

[John Carl]

Jan-Anders,
Thanks for contributing.  The quantity aspect of Quality was a very
interesting aspect to consider.  Like salt for instance.  Too much is low
quality, too little is low quality, but just the right amount is just right.
  And time.  Time is very much a quantity issue as well.  If there's too
much time then time disappears - like rocks just don't seem to age.  If
there's not enough time then time also disappears in the blink of a
figurative eye.

The quality of quantity.  Nice.

Stay away from the worms.

John


On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Jan-Anders <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:

> Hello Marsha, this is my first attempt to use this forum.
>
> We percieve the world in one way and think in another way. that is the big
> problem with quality.
> Anything moves. Humans are moving, their heart will beat and they can’t
> stop breathing.
> I like the parts of western movies where a bunch of bandits rides up and
> try to catch the running train.
> Very nice picture of humanitys struggle to understand the reality and
> themselves.
>
> The thing is that Quality has three dimensions within the time, not two.
> Beside the dynamic quality and the static quality
> we also have another that is about numbers, mass and energy. The quality of
> quantity.
>
> Number is a quantity aspect of quality. Monopeds, bicycles or
> three-wheelers.
> Three different kinds with different way of using.
> You need at least three wheels to roll steady without a balancing ability.
> No half-wheel possible. I feel comfortable with my four-wheeled car.
> Changes in small number populatons are relatively big changes.
> What if they changed the six-packs of beer to five-packs. I think that
> could start a riot.
> A sixpack is an example upon number quality. Six is good, five is bad
>
> Static form and quantity is totally independent from each other.
> Yet they are totally bound to each other because anything that have energy,
> also have form.
> You can’t build a pyramid with only two balls, you need at least 4. With 10
> or 20 you can build a bigger pyramid but it is still a pyramid.
> With the same amount of something there are a large number of ways to
> arrange it.
> That is why chess is so interesting. The chessmen can be arranged in
> millions of ways.
> The same conditions concerning form is also affecting all materia and
> energy in the universe.
> The mathematics behind form is similar all over the universe.
> The sum of the angles of a triangle is always 180°. Every molecule is
> affected by the same rules.
>
> We can see tracks of the time as a drop of water that falls on a surface of
> water, how the collision forms a circular wave on the surface with the same
> speed in all directions. Two dimensional time.
> The sound waves from raindrops meeting leaves in the forest is making a
> noise from thousands of drops and every sound is spreading as wave spheres
> in all or most directions. Three dimensional time.
>
> The time itself is like a bubble, a sphere, emanating from the starting
> point and working out in all directions.
> Outside the sphere is the future and inside is the past.
> The actual level of the change or the now is in the border between the past
> and the future.
>
> Any event or change has its own time. Quality is the keep of the balance in
> the three dimensions.
> Too much or less in one dimension, is unbalancing and can stop the event.
> Which is the end of every process.
>
> All energy has form, formed energy has a value.
>
> You already got an emotional system to orient yourself in these three
> dimensions as you are already since birth working on your high quality life.
> Emotions are faster than your brain. Our DNA has been trained for millions
> of years. Our conscius thinking maybe 100 000 years. You can't calculate
> where the ball is heading but you've got a very fast sense for it.
>
> You got senses and emotions for the amount of energy and other load in your
> life:
> You got enough money. Hunger, thirst and a garage that you can't use
> because its filled with other things than a car.
>
> You got senses and emotions for your form, the static pattern and firm
> parts of your life:
> You feel healthy and strong. You are definitely getting it all right. You
> thrust your bank and your local bus schedule. You feel safe with your
> insurance company but you arent really sure that you'll get any money from
> them if something happen.
>
> You got senses and emotions for your purpose, the dynamic and creative side
> of your life:
> You're beautiful and intelligent. You know boredom, tiredness of all this
> stupid and unfilled forms, lust for a talk to a friend.
> The next chess move you make will really be a treath for your opponent.
>
> Too much or too less of anything is blasphemic
> :-)
>
> Jan-Anders Andersson
>
>>
>>
>> Marsha:
>> >From 'The Dalai Lama at MIT' and pertaining to why some of the Buddhist
>> tools, like visualization, are necessary.  And maybe why I think the
>> 'world
>> as is' could be better without the subject/object point-of-view.
>>
>> "  ... We need to place these efforts in a larger perspective.  They are
>> part of a more general goal of achieving a transformation of the way we
>> perceive the phenomenal world as well as the way we conceive of the nature
>> of the perceiver-- the "I", the subject.
>>   Why do we need to transform these things?  What is wrong with the way in
>> which we ordinarily perceive the world?  Usually when we perceive the
>> world,
>> we cannot help but assign to it values and judgments.  In some cases, of
>> course, doing so helps us to function in this world.  If we know something
>> is very hot, we need to be careful with it.  If we know that something is
>> dangerous, we keep our distance.  But the process quickly solidifies, and
>> soon we start assigning or imputing characteristics to external objects
>> that
>> we feel are intrinsic to them but are not. We might think this floor is
>> beautiful because we perceive it as such.  But very quickly we tend to
>> believe that it is intrinsically beautiful, or ugly.  We believe that
>> wounds
>> are intrinsically pleasant or unpleasant, and so, similarly, in the cases
>> of
>> taste, touch, and all our sensory experiences.  In fact, there is a deeply
>> interdependent process between outer phenomena and our mind. We perceive
>> things and assign values to them; we try to possess things or discard them
>> based on those judgments; and we start to believe that the characteristics
>> we impute to object actually belong to the objects.  In this way, we
>> experience a much stronger compulsion to attract or repulse them.
>>
>>   The problem is that our experiences of craving or repulsion are at odds
>> with reality.  Things are not intrinsically beautiful or pleasant. A rose
>> might be beautiful to our eyes, but its "beauty" does not mean much to a
>> whale or a bat.  Because our perception is at odds with reality, we end up
>> with a sense of frustration, torment, inner conflict, and suffering.
>> Likewise for the perceiver's experience of him- or herself..."
>> This might diminish the morality of Protagoras' "Man is the Measure of all
>> Things", but it does nothing to diminish the morality of Quality.  Imho.
>>
>> Marsha, the fool
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 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/
>