[MD] BioCentrism: Was Zeno correct?

Mon Nov 8 12:38:02 PST 2010

Well, in the physikal world,motion is always relative,there are no other
motions
so if and when you try to shelter motion under the ubrella of Quality,
quality
itself will inherit the relative properties of motion , being restricted to
the relativityness of movement, you can only define motion in the
metaphysikal
world as undefinable, to avoid the inheritance effect towards relativity.

Quality cannot be relative, it has no boundary's or restrictions.

To move up to some good stuff

ZAm, Page 166/167
e-copy, ..

"At the leading edge there are no subjects, no objects, only the track of
Quality ahead, and if you have no formal way of evaluating, no way of
acknowledging this Quality, then the entire train has no way of knowing
where to go. You don’t have pure reason...you have pure confusion. The
leading edge is where absolutely all the action is. The leading edge
contains all the infinite
possibilities of the future. It contains all the history of the past. Where
else could they be contained?
The past cannot remember the past. The future can’t generate the future. The
cutting edge of this instant right here and now is always nothing less than
the totality of everything there is.
Value, the leading edge of reality, is no longer an irrelevant offshoot of
structure. Value is the predecessor of structure. It’s the preintellectual
awareness that gives rise to it. Our structured reality is preselected on
the basis of value, and really to understand structured reality requires an
understanding of the value source from which it’s derived.
One’s rational understanding of a motorcycle is therefore modified from
minute to minute as one works on it and sees that a new and different
rational understanding has more Quality. One doesn’t cling to old sticky
ideas because one has an immediate rational basis for rejecting them.
Reality isn’t static anymore. It’s not a set of ideas you have to either
fight or resign yourself to. It’s made up, in part, of ideas that are
expected to grow as you grow, and as we all grow, century after century.
With Quality as a central undefined term, reality is, in its essential
nature, not static but dynamic. And when you really understand dynamic
reality you never get stuck. It has forms but the forms are capable of
change.
To put it in more concrete terms: If you want to build a factory, or fix a
motorcycle, or set a nation right without getting stuck, then classical,
structured, dualistic subject-object knowledge, although necessary, isn’t
enough. You have to have some feeling for the quality of the work. You have
to have a sense of what’s good. That is what carries you forward. This sense
isn’t just something you’re born with, although you are born with it. It’s
also something you can develop. It’s not just "intuition," not just
unexplainable "skill" or "talent." It’s the direct result of contact with
basic reality, Quality, which dualistic reason has in the past tended to
conceal." end (""""mine)

-----------------------------------------------------
(Adrie)

some isolated parts from this, pay attention to the "here and now"

The past cannot remember the past. The future can’t generate the future.

The cutting edge of this instant right here and now is always nothing less
than the totality of everything there is.

Value, the leading edge of reality, is no longer an irrelevant offshoot of
structure. Value is the predecessor of structure. It’s the preintellectual
awareness that gives rise to it. Our structured reality is preselected on
the basis of value, and really to understand structured reality requires an
understanding of the value source from which it’s derived.

Hi Adrie,

I am sorry, I am a bit slow.  I do understand physical reality, and that
things seem to move within it.  How does this facet tie in with MOQ?   I am
interested; I want to learn.  This is not an attempt at dismissive arguments
that you seem to love.  It is an honest question which digs into the
metaphysics of Quality.  Please explain.

Thanks,
Mark

2010/11/8 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>

> Hi Adrie,
>
> I am sorry, I am a bit slow.  I do understand physical reality, and that
> things seem to move within it.  How does this facet tie in with MOQ?   I am
> interested; I want to learn.  This is not an attempt at dismissive
> arguments
> that you seem to love.  It is an honest question which digs into the
> metaphysics of Quality.  Please explain.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:58 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > motion is a facet of the physikal reality
> >
> > 2010/11/7 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
> >
> > > Hi Adrie,
> > > Thanks for that.  I guess the premise is whether, reality is motionless
> > or
> > > not.  Certainly through a view of SOM and Cause/Effect, reality appears
> > to
> > > be in motion.  At least that would be the perception.  Zeno was not
> > looking
> > > at people walking and such, but at underlying paradoxes, which is also
> an
> > > appropriate inquiry.  He may be pointing more to the inability of logic
> > to
> > > provide description to reality.  As such, the use of motion is
> > incomplete,
> > > and paradoxical.
> > >
> > > So my question to your Adrie, is whether you consider Quality to be in
> > > motion or not.  I believe this is an appropriate question and cannot
> > simply
> > > be dismissed with the statement that Quality cannot be defined.  I am
> > > asking
> > > for an opinion, as such it does not impose rigid definitive qualities.
> >  So
> > > is Quality in motion or not?  Those are the only two answers to choose
> > > from.
> > >  If Quality equals reality as has been suggested then Quality is in
> > motion.
> > >  This would indeed be an important premise that we can discuss through
> > the
> > > request for more details on the nature of this motion.  Remember that I
> > am
> > > not asking about dynamic quality (DQ).
> > >
> > > What say you about this detail?
> > >
> > > By the way, my bird is from the Windup Bird Chronicle, by Murakami.
>  Good
> > > book, give it a read if you have a chance, it may have been translated
> > into
> > > Flemish, or Dutch, or French.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Mark
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > parser
> > 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
>

-- 
parser