Hello everyone
Ascmjk@aol.com wrote:
> 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
Hi Jon
Thank you for your comment. Yes, of course we sense Dynamic Quality,
though as you insinuate, it's more non-sensing than actual sensing.
That's what gets us off the hot stove... "a vague sense of we know not
what." But we cannot describe what it is, for as soon as we do, it is no
longer Dynamic Quality.
Dan
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