[MD] SQ is the illusion

[Ian Glendinning]

Interesting John,

My process view says all is dynamic, static patterns are simply
sufficiently slow moving for long enough to be noticed .... species.
The error is to treat those named patterns as objects more real than
the dynamics - mostly chaotic - from which they fleetingly emerge (for
a few seconds or a few aeons). They are patterns simply because they
are noticably less chaotic.

The human perspective (of scale and time, and intellect hanging off
the fourth floor balcony) gives us misleading impressions of stable
reality.

Ian

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 4:49 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> People talk about DQ like its so mysterious and ineffable, but really it's
> SQ that's completely incomprehensible and mysterious.  Nothing is really
> static, but it all seems like it is in the moment.  What's up with that?
> Underlying substance is more unreal than real.  Patterns only exist in a
> constantly shifting cosmos, with everything always in flux from moment to
> moment.  Static?  What's static?
>
> According to Magnus, the one and zeros of a machine.  The cold, rational
> precision of logic.  That is, our own rational systems. But these are
> unreal.  The real world pulls plugs, zaps with cosmic rays and turns to rust
> in time.
>
> Meanwhile, the ongoing Quality which causes us to create the world in our
> heads, it's so plain and obvious and unchanging.  So unmysterious and
> evident.
>
>  But everybody wants to believe that  SQ exists.  They want to feel that
> reality is  stable.  Even though we know it's not.   What is it with you
> people and your static cling?
> 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
>