Hey folks,
>Don, i am unsure if we can say that DQ is always changing, because we cannot
>really define it in the first place. static quality is always changing
>because DQ permeates it. it is static quality that gives our reality its
>realness. it is DQ that provides change, and while the two are both
>Quality, one we are aware of, and the other we will never be aware of except
>for its passing.
I think sometimes we look way too far into things. Dynamic Quliaty
is...dynamic. It's always changing, always new, and that's why we can't
define it. By the time you throw definition X on it, it has changed.
Definition X then has helped to transform the values into static Quality.
In other words, those patterns have become known.
>in my opinion, the 5th level could be said to be Dynamic Quality, but
>because DQ permeates all four static levels, this is not quite right.
>perhaps its a starting point though.
I came into the middle of this discussion, so if my comments don't make any
sense, just disregard them. The four levels are subcategories of static
quality, to posit that DQ is a fifth level is to subcategorize it under
static Quality, which is to kill DQ. You kill it for several reasons: 1)
The static levels are defined and/or well understood, while DQ is not, 2)
the DQ/SQ split would no longer exist as there would be nothing 'opposed'
to SQ, DQ would BE SQ, just a particular KIND of SQ [the fifth level], 3)
dynamic Quality LEADS the universe along in its cosmic dance, creating the
patterns that hang around and become static, so if DQ was another level
that we were evolving to, it wouldn't be there in the first place to lead
us along [or we would get into the tautology of having DQ exist and evolve
us back to itself :-) ].
Cheers,
Martin
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST