[MD] Metaphysics and the mystic.

[118]

Hi Ron,
I think you put it well.  Once sense of knowing is alive, the other
one dead.  One is dynamic, the other is static.  "I know what I know"
are two different forms of knowing.

Reflection begets the static since it presents a symbol for the
active.  Looking into a mirror is different from seeing your
reflection and considering it for future reference.  This is similar
to a staircase analogy of the static.  The steps are static, but
walking up them is dynamic.

We should not confuse the intellectual level for its static
representation.  You are not your reflection.  Dynamic and static
co-exist in the intellectual level as in every other level.  The
levels, when described, are steps.  Much of our intellectualizing is
dynamically produced, the other parts are placeholders.  One cannot
exist without the other.  All in my humble opinion, and subject to
dynamic revision.

Cheers,
Mark

On 1/25/12, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ron :
> Thanks for the time Dave, all the typical silliness aside, I think this
> plays an important factor in our explanation
> of what Dynamic Quality means and how we use the term. You hit on what I was
> after in another thread with
> this statement: "The evolving understanding of the universe is all about
> intellectual quality and this forum should
> be too." I remember Steve and or Matt was pursuing something similar in the
> vein of "knowing" as intelligibility
> by direct aquaintance, as in recognition as remaining in the distinction of
> the static. I think they were attempting
>  to make the arguement that in this regard
>  the "pre-conceptual" is little more than a place holder for the primacy of
> the origin of understanding and I believe
> the focus was on what we mean generally, regardless of context, of what it
> means to "know" and how this fits in
> pragmatically with what we mean by the "pre-conceptual" in regard to how it
> functions within our system of
> the intellectual understanding of MoQ. If to "know" has two meanings, one
> Dynamic context and one Static,
> then it would be important to elaborate apon this and clarify it. If
> "pre-conceptual" is taken to mean "before
> understanding" then we must be careful how we use it and not to pose a
> contrary position by essentially
> making the claim that we can posess an understanding before understanding.
> Caught like this, in a seriouse
> debate with a formidable critic would be embarrassing I would imagine. One
> that would be difficult to clarify
> once stepping into it. Very similar to making the claim that static quality
> is everchanging, and on that note,
> technically change is a distinction made in experience and distinctions are
> formally known to be static. DQ
> is statically "known" as change but again we must be very careful about our
> explanations in this regard.
> Just pointing this out.
>
> Being prepared when it comes to these sorts of criticisms only strengthens
> our ability to explain our
> philosophical position. You may feel that they are not fair criticisms at
> all but when it comes to continuity
> in meaning it helps to lend clarity to these reservations no matter how ill
> founded we may believe them
> to be.
>
> ..
> 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
>