Wed, 7 Oct. Roger Parker (>) wrote to Platt Holden (>>)
> You wrote to Jonathan that:
>> "DQ doesn't just lie around waiting for something to happen as
>> "potential" implies. I see it as an active force of creation,
>> striving to make the world better, i.e., more beautiful, more
>> elegant, more harmonious, more aware, more fun, more free. "
> I agree with the start of of this quote, but then it splits DQ into a defined
> purpose. We may indeed become as you say, or we may pass through this phase,
> or we may not go there at all. Freedom and new static patterns are part of
> the universe. Fun and pain. Awareness and ignorance. Harmony and discordance.
> Destinations and journeys.
> A Universe without purpose is "nothing." A universe with a definable purpose
> is "potential". A dynamic, undefinable universe is reality.
> The Dynamic is reality
> The Dynamic is purpose
> The Dynamic is quality
> Defining The Dynamic is like defining the indefinite infinite.
Roger, Platt and who it may concern.
[ Friday 9 Oct: Before I get my piece together the discussion races
ahead and what I say looks like repetitions. I see from today's posts
that Roger and Platt concludes in the same vein. Great].
This month's theme is simply impossible. You will all remember
Phaedrus' "translation" of Tao Te King in ZMM that contains this
statement: "The quality that can be defined is not absolute Quality".
(page 253 Bodley Head).
The above Catch-22-like sentence says it in compressed form, but
please look to SOTAQI for a more "bo-ring" explanation why it is so
principally. If subject-object thinking is seen as Q-Intellect all
attempts on definition must necessarily be S-O producing! Platt's
"freedom" is the term that best avoids the
object-quality/subject-quality trap and yet is freighted with
MEANING. I think both Platt and Roger agree with this, I merely
wanted to add this.
This morning's mail contained another entry to this tread
from Sktea@aol.com who wrote:
snip....
> From a semantic standpoint, phenomena such as platypi and professors
> need not be defined by purpose only, but by any value (platypi have
> duck bills and add nothing to intellectual discussions, professors
> have, say, tweed suits and try to dominate those discussions).
> Defining phenomena by purpose seems to have high intellectual value,
> but I am not sure how the sum of phenomena (i.e. the Universe) is to
> be defined by common purpose; except insofar as (we theorize) the
> Universe tends to move toward DQ, but formally that is no definition
> at all!
Exactly SK! Another confirmation of the SO-thinking as Q-Intellect
idea ..language/semantics is subject-object to the core: a phenomenon
and its purpose, a thing and its qualities, a person and her body, a
body and its mind...... "A and not A" till kingdom comes. "Defining
phenomena by purpose seems to have high intellectual value"....Yes
yes! It IS Intellect!
Bodvar
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 - 16:02:35 BST