In a message dated 11/20/00 7:11:26 PM Central Standard Time,
DGlover@centurytel.net writes:
> Your question goes straight to the heart of the MOQ and of Niels Bohr's
> framework of complementarity. We might say Dynamic Quality is the
> evolutionary motor yet one we cannot conceive of. We might say Dynamic
> Quality is God but not a God we can talk to or pray to or imagine in any
> way at all. The harmony we see all around us is our own static quality
> harmony and not the harmony of God; of Dynamic Quality. There is nothing
> at all that can be said of Dynamic Quality without disturbing it into
> something else. If you haven't yet, you should read the Subjects,
> Objects, Data and Values paper. That answers your question quite well,
> much better than I am able to.
>
>
Hi Dan
It gave me pause when you said we can't "imagine Dynamic Quality in any way
at all." I don't understand what you mean. I've always considered Dynamic
Quality something you could sense, like something glimpsed in the corner of
the eye, but never see straight on...like an out-of-focus image in a camera,
when it comes clearly into focus, it becomes then static Quality.
Jon
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST