[MD] QUALITY=DQ

[MarshaV]

Greetings Bo,

I want to think some more about the Quality/DQ confusion.  They are 
the same for me.  They both point to the same indivisible, 
undefinable and unknowable.  I don't really get the problem.


>In our culture SOM rules (outside our little circle that is) and you are
>right, it (SOM) is not recognized as "official metaphysics", rather
>regarded as how reality IS assembled from the factory. Once SOM is
>seen that way (as a metaphysics) scales fall from people's eyes and is
>why Strawson - in his critique of LILA - was so keen on denying any
>SOM.

A problem may be that metaphysics, any metaphysics, may be seen as a 
dirty word right now.  It was religion, and now it is science that is 
playing the subject/object-pipes for all to follow.



> >  Reality as a s/o duality in its various forms seems to have been the
> > most common point-of-view within the philosophical circles, including
> > periods where one was rejected countered by periods when the other was
> > rejected.  I doubt that common people thought about it at all; I would
> > guess that they had been indoctrinated with a 'theological
> > determinism'.
>
>Right! SOM has alternated between the subjective and objective
>extremes ever since the Greeks started the see-saw with the Sophists'
>subjectivism ("Man the measure" of what's true) versus Plato's
>objectivity (Truth is independent of Man) No sooner is one accepted as
>self-evident before the other starts rising. This is so because they are
>interdependent, one presupposes the other.

They are interdependent!   You are correct.  I didn't see that before.


> > Overthrow?  How?   It is hard enough to overthrow the idea of
> > subjects and objects within one's individual brain.  The ego portion
> > of the self seems to exist because of it.
>
>If the MOQ is to replace SOM and "subsume it (SOM) under its own
>system" it means revolution (overthrowing) Yes, the ego, self,
>consciousness are all SOM's work and it may be retained as static
>intellectual values - for valuable it is - but with the overall MOQ context
>in mind.

Self is valuable, as is science, if seen from the MOQ point-of-view, 
otherwise it's nothing but ego, conflict and repeating the same old 
mistakes over and over and over.



> > BTW, have you ever listened to explanations of Quantum Theory&etc.?
> > If it wasn't labeled science, it could only be called mysticism.
>
>Yes, I know, but do you recommend any particular lecture on this issue
>(a link)

I am going through three dvd courses on Quantum Theory, all for 
non-scientists.  I am in the middle of the second which is primarily 
on particle physics.  It is sooo interesting, but I am continuously 
shocked by the objectivity in the language.  They talk with a 
Baconian attitude, and I wonder if they really think that 
way.  Here's a point-of-view I think is more helpful.

Fritjof Capra, The Systems View of Life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_MDRI-Q76o&feature=related



> > > In my opinion DQ is the ocean and the waves the static levels with
> > > ripples on top of the waves= static patterns.
>
> > I don't know how to state it in a rational sentence, but to me the
> > movement of those waves requires the static and dynamic.  As one
> > goes deeper into the ocean, the static falls away.
>
>Well, the static may fall away, but where waves are they are ocean
>waves, there is no particular depth the OCEAN changes to dynamic
>ocean/static ocean.


I think we agree that waves and ocean are both ocean.   And while I'm 
at it, other than as a mathematical model, how static is a wave?

I hope all is going well with your painting.


Marsha









_____________

The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and 
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.

.
.