Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:46:00 +0100
Ken, Donny, Bo and squad
Ken wrote
> Magnus, you wrote:
> '"Any constellation of only static patterns, completely void of dynamic
> influence, is what I call non sentient. I.e. it has no free will and is
> predictable in every way. It is the dynamic influence, the DQ, that
> makes static patterns seem sentient, not the particular level as such."
>
> My understanding of the MOQ leads me to think that we cannot have a
> situation such as you describe above. I can think of no situation where
> we
> can have static quality without Dynamic Quality being predisposed by the
> SQ. Again, my definition of sentience is irrelevant in this situation.
Exactly! Donny said the same thing today and that's the point. Nothing
is completely static, not even Moby Dick if you ask me. DQ is involved
in every single quality event. Not just inorganic ones, but in all
levels. That's another reason why sentient, non determinism and free
will are all obsolete words because they are direct consequences of the
quality event. In a MoQ reality, they are tautologies.
Bo, what took you so long bringing out the Mind skeleton? :) I was
trying to keep it there but I guess it's easier to realize that it was
the underlying difference when you can see it.
Donny wrote:
> I brought this up again now because one way to get a lot of
>milege out of this static/Dynamic question is to ask about their
>relationship to time. Are static patterns concrete (temporal) and
>Dynamic
>Q abstract (atemporal) or is it the other way around? Or is all Value,
>static and Dynamic, either concrete or abstract?
We're discussing the *first* split of reality. Time comes later... :}
The SQ/DQ split isn't subsumed within time, it's the other way around.
Magnus
--
"I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good"
N. Peart - Rush
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST