[MD] Where does DQ end and SQ begin and SQ end and DQ begin? It's all bananas isn't it?

[Craig Erb]

[Craig, previously]
> IMHO there are 2 varieties of the MoQ: anthrocentric MoQ (AMoQ) and
> pan-experiential MoQ (PMoQ).  In AMoQ spov's emerge from the
> experience of humans.
> In PMoQ spov's emerge from their own experience: amoebae back away
> from acid and iron filings value movement toward magnets, without 
> humans being involved.




"Quality is shapeless, formless, indescribable. To see shapes and forms is to intellectualize.
Quality is independent of any such shapes and forms. The names, the shapes and forms we give
Quality depend only partly on the Quality. They also depend partly on the a priori images 
we have accumulated in our memory. We constantly seek to find, in the Quality event,
analogues to our previous experiences. If we didn't we'd be unable to act.
We build up our language in terms of these analogues. We build up our whole culture in terms
of these analogues. . ." [RMP]




























"In our highly complex organic state we advanced organisms respond to our environment
with an invention of many marvelous analogues. We invent earth and heavens,
trees, stones and oceans, gods, music, arts, language, philosophy, engineering,
civilization and science. We call these analogues reality. And they are reality.
We mesmerize our children in the name of truth into knowing that they are reality.
We throw anyone who does not accept these analogues into an insane asylum.
But that which causes us to invent the analogues is Quality.
Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create
the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it." [RMP] 

[dmb]
> These quotes have been selected and presented to clarify that one key point.
> Do they clarify it for you? Do you see how radical this is?
 
IMHO the first quote is a not very radical explanation of how we create language
and develop from infants. 
In the second quote, we need to determine what “our environment” refers to.
Do we invent the heavens or have they existed for billions of years longer than us?
If the former, we lose explanatory power and credibility.

We can stimulate the brain with electrodes (irony noted),
so that our pre-conceptual experience is manipulated.
Then there are cases of "phantom limbs", which is an example
of what we create not existing.




















If we could convince others that objects were static patterns, acceptance of the MOQ

would make great strides.
Our reality is not just what we experience, but what we could experience.
Craig[dmb]
> We really cannot rightly understand the MOQ if we think of static patterns as
> actual objects...