[MD] Another parallel

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Dave

I have one computer at my studio and one in my "residence" so when 
I get there in the week-ends I find posts from last week not attended 
to. Not that you wait for them surely but ...... you wrote:

John had said
> > ... But I thought I recalled that SQ is divided into the
> > Romantic/Classic and DQ stands alone.

> dmb says:
> I think that's right. Classical and romantic are two styles of
> thought, with the former focusing on the particulars and the latter
> seeing things in terms of wholes, but they are both static. 

Well, what's not "styles of thought" (ideas=thought patterns)  if one 
starts from your premises of ideas as primary. Not even DQ can be 
exempt from being a thought by the same token? 
 
> It's like the difference between Aristotle and Plato. That's why he
> abandons those terms in the second book and replaces them with static
> quality and Dynamic Quality. I think it would be a big mistake to
> equate DQ with romantic thinking. 

Agree but from another angle. SOM began as the "transient/ 
permanent" dichotomy and with Plato the sense world was "transient" 
while ideas were "permanent", with Aristotle it had become 
form/substance, but these seeming changes does not mean a thing, it 
took a millennium before the subject/object variant occurred and 
another before "our" mind/matter kind.  

Likewise, MOQ is the "dynamic/static" dichotomy, but THIS is no 
variant of SOM with DQ=permanent and SQ=transient (if anything it 
ought to be the opposite) or worse: Quality=permanent and the 
MOQ=trasient) SOM is relegated the place of MOQ's intellectual 
level. But there surely are many variants of the dynamic/static 
dichotomy (as there were of the S/O) Romantic/classic, 
instable/stable, flux/stasis    ....come on find more!!  

Bodvar