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: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 23:38:29 +0200
>
>Dan, Roger, MD
>
>
>M:
>*seen from the SQ viewpoint* (like the self is), I interact with reality
>(DQ+SQ): my dynamic side interacts with the dynamic side of the reality I'm
>going to experience. DQ (the flow) is the sum of all the dynamic sides of
>all
>things.
>
>*seen from the DQ viewpoint* DQ is a flow of interactions that originates
>static patterns of value, AKA "the experience(d)" >>.
>
>
>Dan:
> > Perhaps it would help if you gave me a real world analogy of what a
>Dynamic
> > viewpoint is.
>
>Marco:
>Not easy, I try.
>
>Let's not forget that IMO DQ and SQ are coexisting in Reality... or, in
>other
>words, that Quality has a double nature (dynamic and static). So, each of
>us,
>being real, has a dynamic and a static nature. In this vision, a complete
>staticity and a complete dynamism are merely two conceptual limits (maybe a
>good
>analogy could be zero and infinite?): nothing is completely static or
>completely
>dynamic. So obviously the two viewpoints I'm talking about are
>hypothetical.
>
>So, let's imagine a man living his quite everyday life. Family, job, TV,
>shopping... suddenly he feels there's something strange. He doesn't know
>exactly why, but he feels something of diverse. Today his home town seems
>different, he holds an old camera and takes snapshots, with the hope to fix
>that
>different air in the film. We know how the MOQ describes this process. The
>everyday life is static quality. The strange feeling is a sign of DQ at
>work.
>Taking snapshots is the artistic attempt to investigate the feeling, that
>actually is something happening not simply to him, or to the town; rather,
>to
>the him-town interaction. The Quality Event is not really taking snapshot,
>but
>it is before, when the feeling comes out and shocks the status quo.
>
>I think it's like to have two natures at work. I imagine his static self ,
>a bit
>worry but unable to stop the process, looking at his dynamic side which
>has
>gained a bit of freedom to go and interact freely within the flow. In this
>simple case, the static viewpoint depicts the flow as an interaction of the
>dynamic side of the man with the dynamic side of the town (that "something"
>he
>has never seen before and wants to fix in a snapshot). On the other hand,
>I
>imagine a dynamic flow of man-town interaction, working in silence, day by
>day,
>maybe for years, growing up to that magic Q-Event. From this hypothetical
>viewpoint, the flow has been so long unable to come out, as the precedent
>static
>patterns usually don't allow the flow to come in and provoke changes.
>
>I'm not a writer, and English is not my language, so I just hope I've shown
>what
>I mean. You see that IMHO DQ is not a sort of God, living in another world
>and
>acting upon us, static entities. DQ and SQ are both here, inside and
>around us,
>inseparable parts of the ONE Reality.
Hi Marco
Thank you for the analogy. I do see what you're saying and I appreciate how
difficult it must be discussing something as complex as the MOQ in a foreign
language. We cannot find Dynamic Quality by looking for it. We respond to
it. The MOQ does not subscribe to an "inside" and "around us" notion, rather
it states there is nothing but static patterns of value, plus undefined
Dynamic Quality.
>
>M:
> > >... I think that DQ is immanent in reality, just like SQ, and
> > >that even concepts are part of the flow. Concepts are sort of alive and
> > >changing, according to the same behavior of rocks, plants and
>governments.
> > >And rocks, plants and governments are not merely concepts.
>
>Dan:
> > This seems confusing to me. A rock does not "behave" like a plant and a
> > plant does not "behave" like a government
>
>Marco:
>Of course, but they all have a dynamic and a static nature. Plants don't
>take
>snapshots, they just evolve at its time. In this sense I say that there's a
>similar behavior.
>
>Dan:
> > yet they are all concepts,
> > otherwise, what are they?
>
>Marco:
>A plant is not a concept. This is the problem we have. There's a plant (a
>living
>organism, a mix of patterns), and there's the concept "PLANT". Not the
>same.
>(See below my answer to Rog).
Dan:
Yes this seems to be the core of our disagreement. Consider for a moment
that the plant you see is not the plant that is sitting outside your window.
It is inside your mind. There may well be a plant sitting outside your
window but no one has ever seen one directly. Can we agree on this?
>
>Dan:
> > It seems doubtful we will ever agree on a Dynamic experience for there
>is no
> > way to say what that experience is.
>
>Marco:
>Ergo: It seems doubtful we will ever agree on DQ for there is no way to say
>what
>that Quality is. As it is not possible to have two different undefinable
>things
>(as, in that case, we'd have a borderline, thus a definition) you are
>stating
>that Quality and experience are the same. And I've agreed. So, let's
>eliminate
>the term experience, and just call it with its MOQish name: Quality. Or, at
>least, let's assume Experience as a synonymous of Quality (like Value, for
>example) thus accept that there is a Dynamic Experience (experiencing) and
>a
>Static Experience (the experienced).
Dan:
Experience is experience. Quality CAN be defined, to a point. That is what
we are attempting here.
>
>Dan:
> > I seem to know when something is better than something else, though I
> > suspect that's not always the case. Most often it is that which I am
>more
> > comfortable with that seems better. If someone attempts to show me a
>better
> > way to do something than the way I am used to doing it, I don't always
>see
> > it as being better. But maybe I'll try it their way, just out of
>curiosity.
> > And after I try it a few times, suddenly I cannot imagine going back to
>the
> > old way of doing it. Now, is it truly that their way is better? or have
>I
> > simply reached another comfort level?
>
>Marco:
>You depict DQ with "what's better". But IMO it is not correct. The concept
>of
>better comes later, when we reach the new static latch. In the example
>above,
>taking snapshot could even be better than attending to the everyday life,
>but we
>will understand it in the end, maybe. IMO DQ comes before... it's the feel
>for something better, or as you say, the initial curiosity.
Dan:
Exactly. When I say Dynamic Quality is what's better, I don't mean any
particular thing is better than another thing. I mean "it" is the feeling
that drives us to "betterness" and tells us we are on the right path. Again,
all we deal with is concepts and so yes, you're right.
>
>
>=========
>
>Rog:
> > We do not deny experiences nor do we deny patterns of experience, nor do
>we
> > deny the value of concepts. Remember though that the concept of a
> > rock/plant/government is a concept (tautology), but that the concept
>does
> > have a referent to a complex set of shared experiences. ICBW though.
>
>Marco:
>I agree, the plant I'm looking at is a "set of shared experience" ... I'm
>also
>part of those experiences, thus I'm partly modifying that plant (actually,
>from
>this moment, it will be "the plant I was talking about in that message",
>and it
>will be true only for that particular pine tree in my garden). BUT, it is
>very
>sensible to state that it was a solid pine tree even before this
>interaction
>with me, as, in order to be a pine tree, there's no need of a MOQer typing
>a
>message in August 2001. And IMHO, in order to be a solid pine tree, there's
>no
>need of any concept. ICBW, of course.
Dan:
As Roger says, we must remember reality is contextual. How can there be a
solid tree without a concept of a tree? What tree? To even talk about a tree
is to assume the context of a tree. Tell me how I am wrong.
Thank you for 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 - 16:01:28 BST