[MD] The first division of the MOQ.

[118]

Hi David,
Thanks for the post.  I agree with your summary.  Words and objects
are analogies of Dynamic Quality.  I believe the confusion comes in as
to where Dynamic Quality is (remaining undefined is fine).  Dynamic
Quality shines through in the present moment, that is all I am saying.
 However, that is saying a lot.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:15 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> I would like to start by saying that I think the first division of the MOQ can be summed up thusly:
>
> I don't think the term Quality is misleading. I think it is better than simply Subjects or Objects.
>
> The MOQ solves religious problems, it doesn't avoid them as you seem to want to do here. The Metaphysics of Quality deals with undefined things. It deals with them beautifully. It says that they are so important they form one part of the first division of the MOQ.

[Mark]
I am not sure that religion, as properly followed, has problems.  If
one tries to make subjects and objects out of religion, then there are
problems.  Religion is one's own personal relationship with the
cosmos, as such it is beyond the descriptive aspect, in exactly the
same way Quality is.  If one becomes objective about religion, then
one is on the wrong path, and is simply playing an intellectual game,
which is trivial.  The division in MoQ is an analogy which may or not
be useful to ones own reality.  It is how one interprets it that is
under discussion.
>
>>
>> The act of conceiving occurs in the moment (the sub-nanosecond scale),
>> therefore it is dynamic.
> The act of conceiving is an act. It is some thing. It is not Dynamic Quality. The fact that you can put it on a scale proves this.

[Mark]
When you describe an act with words to someone else, it becomes a
thing, a transference, if you will.  Being in the act is Dynamic
Quality.  It has no measure, it is pure experience without words,
subjects, or objects.  It is only on encapsulation that it fosters
tangibility.  At least that is my interpretation of MoQ.
>

> We do 'live in the past tense' as you describe. Unless you are experiencing DQ which is no thing. Not you or I or anything else. But the moment you open your mouth or the moment your mind grasps DQ, or even calls it Dynamic Quality it is static and not Dynamic Quality.

[Mark]
I would have to disagree.  We live in the ever present which is
Dynamic Quality.  As one is calling it Dynamic Quality, it is a
dynamic process without words.  This may be a subtle point for you,
but there is a big difference between talking about DQ, and living DQ.
 Does this make sense?  I would have to say that DQ is everything more
than it is no thing.  The static portion is only that which we talk
about, which is part of the societal level.  We transfer experience
into words and objects which we can then relate to another.  As you
are thoroughly involved in the present, there is no past tense.
>
>>
> Have you or I or anyone else thought using something which is not a 'pattern formed in your head'?  The MOQ describes reality, but it is not reality itself.

[Mark]
Yes, I agree with you, MoQ is a method for transferring information,
it is not the information itself.  Such information is the interaction
of the brain with the environment.  It is completely dynamic in
nature.  When you are listening to music, or completely involved in a
movie, there is no conceptual patterning going on, it is just living.
>
>>
 Dynamic Quality is fundamental in the MOQ. But what are we speaking
now? We are speaking concepts which are of course... static.

Yes, the exchange of information is through static quality.  There is
a place for thoughts before the words are formed for this purpose,
that is dynamic.  We live in it all the time.
>
Cheers,
Mark
..
> 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
>