[MD] MOQ/BOC

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:46 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> HI Dan,
>
> I always enjoy reading your posts, and I wish I had the
> privilege more often.  I do not know anything about the
> BOC, but have enjoyed reading texts about Eastern
> philosophy (Buddhism's emptiness).

Hi Marsha

Thank you! I have never read much Eastern philosophy. John was good
enough to send a copy of THE GODS DRINK WHISKEY by Stephen Asma and I
enjoyed the pictures very much. Honestly though, I just don't think he
gets it. That author, I mean. Not John. He might get it. Too soon to
tell I suppose.

It seems odd that a guy with a PhD wouildn't get it and it seems
rather presumtuous of me to say so, I suppose. I better just shut up.

Peace and love,

Dan

>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 12, 2010, at 12:45 AM, Dan Glover wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone
>>
>> I've been away working in the dirt and despite other intentions
>> thinking quite a bit. Reading over them, these thoughts seem a bit
>> jumbled but I want to try and get them down while they seem fresh in
>> my mind. Please forgive any inconsistencies; this is a very rough
>> draft.
>>
>> Khoo, in a recent post, mentions the potential value of marrying East
>> and West when it comes to philosophy. I agree; so let's in an effort
>> to clarify both the MOQ and the Book of Changes compare both
>> documents:
>>
>> The language of the Book of Changes (BOC) is a method of
>> differentiation, as is the language of the MOQ. Any method of
>> differentiation can be seen as a process where the point is to define
>> a particular "something" amongst many. This process acts to zoom in on
>> a "something," to isolate it, and zoom in further to acquire details
>> where the details themselves become "somethings."
>>
>> This process reflects the use of recursion, where, as the process
>> concentrates focus on a something, it differentiates within the
>> previously differentiated and so on, and from there identifies the
>> contents of that something until all elements, all parts, of the
>> something have been clearly defined and in doing so has that
>> something, as a whole, been identified.
>>
>> "In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided
>> into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social
>> patterns and intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all
>> there are. If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic,
>> Biological, Social and Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing,"
>> that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any
>> encyclopedia, is absent." [LILA]
>>
>> The MOQ states that reality can be sorted into four evolutionary
>> levels. That's all there is. The BOC, on the other hand, uses 64
>> hexagrams to describe reality. Since we cannot possibly map "all there
>> is" in a 1:1 format, the BOC as well as the MOQ must predominately use
>> analogy and metaphor to describe "all there is." The MOQ is a map that
>> describes the territory. It is not the territory itself. How could it
>> be? Reality shifts and changes constantly. As soon as we nail it down,
>> poof, it is gone.
>>
>> Looking to the four levels of the MOQ, it seems that as we move from
>> the lower levels to the upper we move from the general to the
>> particular. Just as every biological pattern of value is also an
>> inorganic pattern but not all inorganic patterns are biological, every
>> social pattern is an intellectual pattern but not all intellectual
>> patterns are social. The hallmark of intellect is discrimination. This
>> discrimination applies to the hexagrams in the BOC as well. Starting
>> at the baseline, all four levels of the MOQ can be seen within each
>> hexagram.
>>
>> Each hexagram of the BOC can be seen as complete in itself yet in the
>> language of the BOC, each hexagram is entangled within the context of
>> all other hexagrams. In the language of the MOQ, each level is
>> entangled within the context of all other levels to make up the whole.
>> Each level will contribute an expressiveness to any other level. And
>> that expressiveness is only describable by analogy to the
>> characteristics of some other level. Since, like the BOC, the MOQ is
>> supposed to contain "all there is" it should be able to include
>> itself. I'd like to take some time and explore how it does that, as
>> well as how we can define a level through the association of all other
>> levels.
>>
>> "This classification of patterns is not very original, but the
>> Metaphysics of Quality allows an assertion about them that is unusual.
>> It says they are not continuous. They are discrete. They have very
>> little to do with one another. Although each higher level is built on
>> a lower one it is not an extension of that lower level. Quite the
>> contrary. The higher level can often be seen to be in opposition to
>> the lower level, dominating it, controlling it where possible for its
>> own purposes." [LILA]
>>
>> In the language of the MOQ, each successive level can be seen as in
>> opposition to the lower. This gives us two semantic poles to a level's
>> definition. This duality of opposition runs within each level as well
>> as in between each level. For example, starting with the inorganic
>> level as a base line, we transition into biological patterns of value
>> that take inorganic patterns and usurp them to their own purposes.
>>
>> Transitioning to social patterns of value, we see how biological
>> patterns are usurped and used by the Giant for its own purposes... we
>> only have to think of the human resource department at any
>> corporation. In addition, within the social level, religions have
>> played a major role in in the advancement of science (which is nothing
>> but the obliteration of the old ways) as well as in never-ending war
>> and bigotry.
>>
>> And finally, intellectual patterns value freedom from any social
>> constraints. But there's discord within the intellectual level too.
>> For instance, subject/object metaphysics is seen as a high quality
>> system of pattern of value. SOM proposes that reality is composed of
>> subjects and objects. Period.
>>
>> But the MOQ opposes it in that SOM presupposes value lies in either
>> the subject or the object, or both, since subjects and objects are all
>> there is. The MOQ states that subjects and objects arise from Quality,
>> not the other way around. In the MOQ, reality is composed of patterns
>> of value rather than subjects and objects.
>> "But although the four systems are exhaustive they are not exclusive.
>> They all operate at the same time and in ways that are almost
>> independent of each other." [LILA]
>>
>> Each level is a representation, or a set, of qualities. Each level
>> represents a quality extracted from the duality of opposition. In one
>> sense, we might look at the MOQ as an exponentiation reflecting the
>> application of an opposing set of relationships within each level,
>> with each level embedded within a context set by the previous. In
>> building our understanding of reality in this manner, we move from the
>> general to the particular. This is but half the story though, if we
>> include a focus on going "down" once we reach the top of the MOQ
>> hierarchy.
>>
>> Due to the manner in which the hexagrams of the BOC are formed, each
>> is in fact made up of its own nature plus the input of all other
>> levels. And in the MOQ, when we focus on any one level, what is
>> reflected is the influence of context on the expression of some
>> archetype through that context. In other words, we can consider each
>> level like a hexagram, as having a spectrum made up of influences from
>> all other levels, seen through the context of the level under
>> consideration. It seems plausible to consider that this Dynamic
>> differentiation is how the MOQ includes an expression of itself within
>> itself, as does the BOC. A book contains itself, of course.
>>
>> "So what the Metaphysics of Quality concludes is that all schools are
>> right on the mind-matter question. Mind is contained in static
>> inorganic patterns. Matter is contained in static intellectual
>> patterns. Both mind and matter are completely separate evolutionary
>> levels of static patterns of value, and as such are capable of each
>> containing the other without contradiction.' [LILA]
>>
>> Matter starts as an idea, a static intellectual pattern of value. An
>> idea starts in the mind, a static inorganic pattern of value. These
>> separate evolutionary levels define each other by their opposition.
>> Looking to the BOC, each hexagram is constructed of bits of
>> information encoded in lines representing complementary features of
>> reality. Each hexagram is an idea that defines itself through the
>> opposition of other hexagrams as well as the lines themselves.
>>
>> Tired now,
>>
>> Thanks for reading,
>>
>> Dan
>> 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/md/archives.html
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>