Hi glove,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me.
>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. :)
I commend you on wanting to perform these experiments, I suppose they can
be fun. However, I am reminded of Zen Buddhism. The real quality gained
from DQ is to sit there and experience it...without thought. It's the Here
and Now, the freshness, newness, and creativity of the moment, and the
excitement comes from merely experiencing the new or meditating and
eliminating all these nasty thoughts. To cut it up and categorize it seems
like a very SOM thing to do.
Dynamic Quality doesn't have to be named or defined in order to gain any
value from it. It can be found on the crest of a rollercoaster as you're
flying down the slope at incredible speeds, in a moment of passion, or on
an old country road that you've never traveled before.
Again, if you want to categorize it into something like a 5th level, define
it, or give it some other kind of meaning, it could be a fun thing to do.
However, I think it is just the road back to SOMland.
>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.
You have a very interesting model and it seems to definitely be more
complete than a simple box model. I have had trouble envisioning where
exactly DQ fits in myself. The model I've sometimes imagined is that of
legos. You start with a few legos (the perceivable values) and build a
design, and that's the first level. You keep repeating this until a much
wider pattern emerges, which would be the next level. Again, it's still
the same basic units, the wider pattern is *dependent* upon the smaller
patterns (just as one level is dependent on the level below it), but the
larger pattern is different and functions in different ways and can
dominate the smaller/lower patterns. Now, where does DQ fit into this
model? Perhaps it is the model-builder, the hand that moves the legos.
But in a way that is not correct, because we know that DQ is quality just
like SQ, it just has a different nature (dynamic instead of static). Maybe
since it's a Grand Dynamic Lego that we're trying to find, there is no one
place that we can point to and say "there, that's DQ." It can't be
represented very accurately in terms of models, and I doubt it can be
represented very well by any language models (i.e. definitions and
categories).
As the Hindus would put it, defining the infinite by the finite is wrought
with problems. But have a go at it, just don't fall into SOMland. I'll be
walking down the road less traveled. :)
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