Hello everyone
>From: "Marco" <marble@inwind.it>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Self, Free/Determinism : a short essay (again... ;)
>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 00:30:31 +0200
>
>Dan, Roger, 3WDave,
>
>I'm pretty comfortable with "DQ is experience", while I have problems with
>"Q is
>experience".
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Quality is Reality, it means that Quality
>is
>"all there is". So, stating that Quality is experience, is like to say
>that
>experience is all there is. The result is that, according to the MOQ, there
>should be a Dynamic experience and a static experience.... but, I have
>problems
>with such a concept. Actually, if experience is all there is, what is the
>outcome of experience? Experience?
Hi Marco
I would say the outcome of experience is the same as the outcome of life. We
all know what that is, I take it. I believe the MOQ is quite clear in
stating Quality is experience. Also I believe it is quite clear in stating
that which has no value does not exist. Quality is all there is. This seems
very elemental and if we do not agree on such elemental principles I fail to
see how we can discuss the MOQ in an intelligent fashion.
I don't think the MOQ says anything about 2 kinds of experience. If so, it
would tend to be something like 2 streams of consciousness, which I believe
Robert Pirsig wishes to avoid.
>
>On the other hand, assuming that Reality (Quality) is a *sinolos* of DQ and
>SQ,
>and that DQ is experience, is IMO more productive. In this vision, real
>things
>*interact* (so, they are DQ) and *exist* (so, they are SQ).
>Simultaneously.
I looked up *sinolos* but failed to find it in the online dictionary. I will
assume it means that reality is something like a combination of Dynamic
Quality and static quality. This is ok as long as we don't try and define
Dynamic Quality. We may carefully define static quality, however. We do that
by discovering what's better.
>
>The process can be seen from two different viewpoints:
>
>seen from the SQ viewpoint (like the self is), I experience reality (DQ+SQ)
>by
>means of a dynamic interaction: my dynamic side interacts with the dynamic
>side
>of the reality I'm experiencing. DQ (the flow) is the sum of all the
>dynamic
>sides of all things.
I sense a real effort here at defining Dynamic Quality. The more we try and
define Dynamic Quality the farther away it gets. Dynamic Quality is simply
what's better. That's all.
>
>seen from the DQ viewpoint, DQ is a flow of experience that originates
>static
>patterns.
If you moved "of experience" behind the word "patterns" then your sentence
would seem better to me.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:27 BST