hi martin and squad
martin writes:
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.
martin, what you say has much value and i can agree with you in everything.
but at the same time, to not examine possibilities will lead nowhere. yes,
when we hang a name upon DQ it is no longer DQ, just as naming it has
devalued the entire notion of 'it'. oops, i did it again! but that doesnt
mean we give up the effort though, at least not to my way of thinking. its
the effort that matters and not the answers we hope to obtain by those
efforts. if you were a Cubs fan, you would perhaps be able to appreciate
what i am saying better. :)
glove wrote:
>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.
and you replied:
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 :-) ].
martin, your comments make perfect sense and that is why i said that its not
quite right to view DQ as level 5. but at the same time, to my way of
thinking, DQ encloses and permeates sq and the manner in which this happens
may be thought of as leading to a notion of a DQ level 5, though that notion
is not really correct because of the reasons you state above. for me, the
MOQ is very difficult to invision in a 'ladder' sequence as is the common
way of depicting it and that is what led me to develop my MOQ wimple model.
using that model, i can see that DQ both permeates and contains sq within.
that which lies outside awareness is DQ, and since awareness consists of 4
static levels, the completeness of the model relys on DQ. all four static
levels are tied together by DQ and driven precessionally outwards in an
inside-outing fashion. i can see where a less expansive understanding of DQ
could lead to the notion of a 5th level manifesting as DQ, and that less
expansive understanding is illustrated in the ladder model of the MOQ as
represented in the SODV paper.
its not another box being added to the ladder, but an increased awareness of
DQ that makes it seem like a 5th level is evolving. this is shown very
clearly when you put the four static levels into a series of tetrahedrons,
one enclosing the other and dominating the lower spheres until the intellect
layer is in direct contact with DQ that contains the whole of awareness.
its the many truths idea very graphically illustrated.
best wishes,
glove
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