Hi Jaap and MF
Your last post was quite interesting, I haven't been able to answer it until
now though.
> > Time itself is a static pattern and that
> > would mean that time would be a prerequisite for its own existence.
>
> You're right, as long as you understand time as a fysical 'dimension' it's a
> more or less static pattern of the inorganic level. It's also true that
> static patterns, especially of the inorganic kind, have proven to be very
> stable through time. This is why I also try to separate SQ and DQ as 'the
> already experienced Quality' and 'the not yet experienced Quality'. You can
> say that we have already experienced that a certain fysic pattern is
> reasonable stable through time, but an the other hand we can't predict
> what's going to happen tomorrow -and we never will be able to do so- due to
> 'the unexperienced'. I think that the very essence of 'future time' is that
> it is unexperienced, so there is a certain relation between the flow of
> Quality (I bugged some of you with that concept about a year ago) and the
> flow of time.
Hmm... Future time. I mean, the concept feels very familiar and there's no
doubt in anybody's mind about what we mean with it. But it still feels awkward
to discuss the big Q using a term that is only available in the SQ part of it.
Time, as we know it, is a static (inorganic) pattern that connects all particles
in the universe to experience the same flow of time. For example, for a
particle collision to take place, they have to be at the same place at the
same time. (No revelelations there I'm afraid :)
On the other hand, if we imagine a place devoid of time, this pattern that
connects all particles to the same flow of time wouldn't exist. Each particle
would be free to move forward or backward in time just as it may move to the
right or left, up or down, ...
It's exactly this force that connects all particles in the universe and says:
- Reality is now!
that is time. I guess it's the same thing you call the flow of Quality because
since reality is Quality it also says, Quality is now. It's like a massive
fire blasting through time and triggering quality events.
Maybe I'm wandering here but I still disagree that SQ would be 'the
already experienced Quality' and DQ 'the not yet experienced Quality'.
You partly disagree with yourself by saying:
> But I recognize that static patterns have a certain inertia
> through time, or better: it is the fact that they have inertia that makes
> them static.
What I read here is that you think that static patterns does influence
future time. So, 'the not yet experienced Quality' can't be all DQ. I simply
don't think past/future is the first split of Q. SQ/DQ is something else.
> A last word after obscuring things this far: I agree to anyone who states
> that the Dynamic character of Quality goes beyond such fysical parameter as
> time, but the human experience is so strongly related to time that the idea
> of DQ overlaps that of futere time.
Right, the human experience *is* very related to time. But as we're digging
deeper and deeper into the physical reality we live in - specifically quantum
physics - we're starting to see something that is not dependent on time.
Whether it is DQ or a sub-inorganic level remains to be discovered.
Magnus
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:30 BST