From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Mon Apr 12 2004 - 04:20:41 BST
PART. 2.
Sam:
Quality is bigger than DQ. But DQ is the interface between any particular set
of static patterns and
Quality itself.
Mark 12-4-04: I am beginning to suspect that you have been reading The edge
of chaos more closely than you have ever let on Sam?
It's like saying a person is the skin - because the skin is what you touch,
what you
relate to. But there's more to a person than the skin - to argue otherwise is
superficial.
Mark 12-4-04: This statement of yours neatly confirms the, 'God or self
behind experience' theories which indicate the gulf between your philosophical
approach and the philosophical approach of the MoQ. For the third time: Your
arguments Sam appear to have the rather interesting feature of beginning from a
position which has little to do with the MoQ.
I think the heart of what I am trying to argue is that DQ is a relative term
not an absolute term.
Mark 12-4-04: Enough has already been said in this post to adequately
indicate you do not understand the MoQ Sam.
Whether a particular pattern is DQ or not depends upon its relationship with
the SQ surrounding it.
Mark 12-4-04: DQ is not a relative term; The relationship between static
patterns is. When patterns are in tension and become coherent, DQ becomes more
evident. You say, "Whether a particular pattern is DQ or not depends upon its
relationship with the SQ surrounding it" when you should say, "DQ is more evident
in coherent patterned relationships."
When Socrates was teaching his students he was teaching them to realise
something that he already
knew - that didn't make it any less dynamic *for them*, ie for the static
patterns that were
interacting with Socrates' static patterns.
Mark 12-4-04: I wonder what all this has got to do with dmb's question?
Looking back over your post, it appears to come down to your 'skin' covering the
'body' analogy? But that is a 'God or self behind experience' theory.
Quality is nothing at all of this nature, and DQ-SQ coherence doesn't need
them, so what have these to do with dmb's original question that you are not
addressing Sam?
The answer is resolved now that you enquire into teaching: Teaching is the
growth of coherence. As we have seen, coherence, being SQ-SQ coherence in the
(DQ) event stream does not need a 'God or self behind experience' theory,
because coherence IS experience.
AND EXCEPTIONAL COHERENCE IS EXPERIENCE OF THAT WHICH IS CLOSE TO UNDIVIDED
REALITY.
So when you say: "The true nature of reality is undivided. That's the
pre-intellectual cutting edge
of experience" I think you are eliding the distinction between Quality (the
true nature of reality
as undivided) and Dynamic Quality (the pre-intellectual cutting edge **which
we experience**)
because the latter is relative to the static patterns it is based in.
Mark 12-4-04: This statement has been rendered inadequate from an MoQ
perspective (see above).
I still consider Quality to be the mystical reality, and the reason why the Mo
Q works is because it
is an 'open' system, that is, it allows for an appreciation of the
unexpected, and therefore room to
change.
Mark 12-4-04: This statement has been rendered inadequate from an MoQ
perspective (see above).
But DQ changes, when they have Quality and are not degenerate, result in SQ
fallout, and the
process carries on and repeats and repeats, journeying ever deeper into
Quality itself.
Mark 12-4-04: DQ does not change; Coherence becomes more intense.
Event stream (DQ) SODV --------> Coherence <-------- DQ as goal of Evolution
(Lila)
DQ is the
lure that draws us on, it is not the destination.
Mark 12-4-04: DQ is the goal of evolution - the destination of ALL patterned
reality. Coherence is the goal of all intermediate steps along the way.
And that DQ can operate through existing SQ
patterns, dependent on the interaction with other SQ patterns.
Mark 12-4-04: Should be: DQ operates dependent on degree of SQ-SQ tension and
coherence.
When the baby discovers how to walk,
this is surely a DQ moment - even though it has been done millions of times
before.
Mark 12-4-04: Learning is the growth of coherence in and across value levels.
(Even biological patterns 'learn' to develop coherent relationships in the
event stream (DQ.)
There we go. Sorry if this isn't going where you want it to go, but I think
this is the essence of
the debate - and if we can sort this out, then I think many of our other
disagreements will fall
away.
Sam
Mark 12-4-04: Almost right but you were starting to get there towards the end
when you began to think in terms of The edge of Chaos.
Mark
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 12 2004 - 04:28:42 BST