glove (glove@indianvalley.com)
Mon, 3 Aug 1998 06:11:30 +0100
hi Maggie, Platt and LS
Maggie,
after reading your paper on the q-social level i could not help but mark
how
closely your thoughts mirror my own in creating my MoQ wimple model. we,
as
humans (and more than likely all other life forms as well), seem to have
both a consciousness, which we are aware of, and a much vaster
unconsciousness, of which we are unaware of. we all share both
consciously,
q-social patterns, and unconsciously, the collective (un)consciousness,
the
instinctive knowledge which seems responsible for our ability to
perceive
the intellectual layer. the consciousness, our awareness, could be
likened
to static quality (the four levels of MoQ), and the unconsciousness
could be
likened to the much more vast dynamic quality.
therefore we find both SQ latching, defined as q-social patterns, and DQ
precessing, an undefinable collective quality, at work within the social
layer of MoQ. one thing we may not be in agreement on however, is
awareness. there is no doubt in my mind that other creatures besides
human
beings have awareness. therefore it would seem to some that awareness
arises
from the biological layer, if we are to believe the inorganic layer to
be
unaware. because a rock seems to contain no awareness of its own, thats
the
natural assumption to make, but the rock contains awareness...our
awareness
of it. the rock cannot be a rock without our perception of it making it
a
rock. until the rock is perceived and labeled a rock by the observer, it
is
only a 'something'. it seems to me that all layers of the MoQ must be
considered part of awareness, while the ability to perceive the
intellectual
layer seems to be an inherent virtue of our being human.
Platt>
after reading the principles of the MoQ, the evolutionary references in
it
bother me a great deal. the statement 'Static Levels: Quality became
manifest in our world by an evolutionary
sequence of Dynamic Quality Events' leads one to believe the world
existed
before quality became manifest, but to understand MoQ correctly, the
world
IS
quality and whatever existed before the world could be considered DQ or
timelessness, or quality again. the static levels of MoQ are
manifestations
of DQ which our awareness allows us to form relational agreements with
and
thereby latch into SQ. i like 'Quality became our world by a sequence of
Dynamic Quality Events'.
also the statement...'Each higher level evolved from the lower level but
has
become a discrete level' seems to me to be only conjecture. all four
layers
could well have always existed, and our intellectual awareness of them
is
what has evolved and allows us to now examine them. the MoQ does not
explain
where or how the unverse came into being and i am unsure whether we will
ever be able to explain that. the pattern of the universe is contained
within the underlying structure that existed before the universe,
therefore
it seems to me that the four layers of the MoQ havent evolved at all.
MoQ
has been here timelessly, existing as DQ, and we have just begun to
latch
onto it and turn it into something we can agree with, SQ.
the evolution problem, as i see it, is in the perception of the universe
as
a deterministic object, separate from ourself. it is incredibly hard to
break free of that type of thought process...it takes a reality altering
experience to really break free, like Pirsig's peyote experiences or a
lifetime of meditation or both. that song heard on the radio and loved
at
once, why do we like it? what compells us? quality? perhaps...but what
is
quality except a timelessness that pervades all. that song has just been
waiting for the observer to come along and become aware of it. the
length of
time its been waiting doesnt matter, because where it waits is timeless.
glove
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:37 CEST