From: Ilya Korobkov (korobkov_ilya@mail.ru)
Date: Fri Aug 27 2004 - 12:26:47 BST
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your patient and careful explanations! To my regret
they didn't answer all of my questions.
Vac> Ilya:
Vac> They (sq) EMERGE out of nothingness
Vac> in the act of experience (DQ), don't they? And they do not become
Vac> independent of DQ upon emergence, do not "live their own life" - they
Vac> live as long as they are experienced, don't they? If so, what means
Vac> "openness of static patterns to DQ"? They cannot be closed to DQ by
Vac> definition! And cannot be MORE or LESS open to DQ - it just make no
Vac> sense to say so!
Vac> Mark 24-8-04: It does make sense to say, "MORE or LESS open to DQ" because a
Vac> Crocodile is an evolutionary dead end which has remained virtually unchanged
Vac> for millions of years. This particular biological static latch has been so
Vac> successful it has virtually stopped responding to DQ altogether.
Is it so? I would say instead that Crocodile's DQ didn't require
Crocodile's static patterns to change. Crocodile's static patterns
perfectly well fitted Crocodile's DQ for millions of years.
But doesn' matter! I don't like this interpretation of mine for the
same reason I don't like the above interpretation of yours: we both
consider DQ and static patterns as conceptual opposites. But as Paul
in his recent post "RE: MD The individual in the MOQ" showed it is not
right to do so!
Paul:
>> ...the second truth of Nagarjuna has the consequence that this whole
>> static world is ultimately identical to Dynamic Quality,
>> that there is really no division between static quality and
>> Dynamic Quality. Quite simply, if Dynamic Quality is undivided,
>> it can't be divided from static quality!
This is the very notion I had in mind when I wrote in my last letter
that static patterns cannot be closed to DQ by definition. I just
couldn't put it into words with such striking clarity as Paul did.
Patterns are not separate from DQ and therefore they cannot be closed
to DQ. And they cannot be MORE or LESS open to DQ either.
Vac> Mark 24-8-04: When a Dynamic advance is in progress there is the possibility
Vac> of an accompanying static latch or a fall into chaos.
Mark, could you give me one example of a Dynamic advance WITHOUT an
accompanying static latch? I have troubles imagining it. How can
Dynamic Quality exist without static patterns? And the mirroring
question: how can static patterns exist without Dynamic Quality?
Vac> If you imagine a series
Vac> of very rapid advance/latch/advance/latch... type moves, then the perfect
Vac> balance between these two is coherence.
I would save the term "coherence" to denote relationships between
static patterns only. But if you insist on using it to describe
relationships between static patterns and DQ also, I may coin another
term to denote relationships between static patterns only. Let it be
COORDINATION, for example.
Vac> Mark 24-8-04: The first dimension: This is an interesting way of looking at
Vac> it. However, you have introduced a reductionist approach here in that you feel
Vac> it is appropriate to identify basic patterns of sq.
I don't understand why you call my approach reductionist Mark?
What do I reduce to what?
Best regards,
Ilya
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 27 2004 - 12:31:38 BST