Re: MF April 2004 - Metaphysics and the mystical reality.

Date: Mon Apr 12 2004 - 04:20:41 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MF April 2004 - Metaphysics and the mystical reality."

    PART. 2.
    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

    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.

    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

    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

    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

    When the baby discovers how to walk,
    this is surely a DQ moment - even though it has been done millions of times

    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


    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.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archive -
    MF Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 12 2004 - 04:28:42 BST