From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Fri May 16 2003 - 16:58:28 BST
Hi Squonk
> If 1. is an appropriate distance, then the Dynamic
> event is pleasurable. If
> too far away, too static. (You don't warm up.) If
> too close too Dynamic, (You
> get burned.)
Patterns change each other through interaction /
coalescence?
sq: Static patterns exist in a relationship to DQ. Therefore, we may be able
say something about how they behave in response to DQ? I feel one such
striking mode of behaviour is equilibria, which serves a function worthy of
investigation? Note that DQ is focused very meaningfully in equilibria?
> The appropriate distance is best. And what is more,
> if judged to perfection,
> will not require further adjustment. (You will be
> comfortable for how ever
> long you remain at that position in relation to fuel
> burn rate of stove,
> ambient weather conditions, clothing, etc.) That
> best equilibrium are
> empirically observable beyond immediate human
> experience proves there is
> something not analogous, but related to our own
> immediate experience of
> Quality.
Observable 'best equilibrium beyond immediate human
experience'? You mean Physics experiments? Or more
common observations of nature? Formation of
snowflakes, boiling water, is that the kind of thing
you mean?
sq: I was thinking about all patterns. Such balancing acts between SQ/DQ
almost make the Static component transparent? Like a standing wave - and then
Quality shines through, unmediated as through a lens. Snowflakes, waterfalls
and such fascinated Goethe. Newton was more intellectual. Had Goethe attained
the place afforded to Newton, how would our view of Quality be today i
wonder?
Also, when you say equilibrium, I think of static
good, Dynamic good is disrupting equilibrium, in a
way. I think you mean something other than static
equilibrium, can you expand on that?
sq: If patterns exist in a relationship with DQ, then some SQ/DQ
relationships will be better than others? And further, some relationships
will be so exceptional as to awe. (Awe: Dynamic Quality event?) Once the
presence of such relationships is established, they grow like crystals. The
excellent ones will be such that SQ becomes transparent, in a sense? That is
empirical, not analogous it seems to me? What do you think?
The best relationships between DQ and SQ are there to be experienced, and
when experienced, you harmonise with the relationship itself and move closer
to the One. Such relationships are in nature; they are everywhere. An
exceptional balance between SQ and DQ fizzes with ability to effortlessly
transform?
sq: The safest knife is a sharp one, because little to no effort is required
in its operation - and what is the sharpest edge, but a point of balance?
sq: You may introduce agency here? But once drawn to the quality of a good
relationship, are we free to wish to move away from it? Surely once the
process has been ignited and vision becomes more clear, one has begun to
surrender to quality?
sq: Sam has been pursuing Eudeamonia in the MoQ. Eudeamonia is the inference
that if best relationships exist and are maintained, then a human life should
behave in a similar way. And the observation of great characters - excellent
characters does just this. Excellence may be so harmonised that simply being
in its presence transforms and aligns experience in an inclusive wave? Good
teachers teach without teaching?
cheers
Paul
Still thinking ... squonk
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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 May 16 2003 - 16:59:07 BST