----------
> From: diana@hongkong.com
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: Re: MD What is DQ?
> Date: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 12:37 AM
>
> Donald etc,
>
> > Help me out here, as it seems to me the discussion about dynamic
quality
> > is getting rather wordy and complex. My limitations, I'm sure. In my
> > mind, DQ is simply fresh experience, experience outside of existing
> > patterns. Freshness heightens affective responsivity of whatever
quality.
> > There are all sorts of colorations that affect any fresh
> > experiencing--past experiences, concurrent affective states, and the
> > quality of presentness in the moment itself.
>
> I'm also feeling a bit overwhelmed, but I don't think it's anything to
worry about. Even the most renowned physicists don't understand quantum
physics so we're in good company. Be very suspicious of those who claim
they do understand it, imo.
>
> I completely agree with your description of DQ as freshness, and whenever
I get lost I return to that understanding - because this is the one thing
that I am completely sure about.
>
> However if we are to convince the world that the MoQ is better than the
SOM then we need to prove that DQ is not subjective, and I mean prove it
on their terms, ie "objectively".
>
> Pirsig's point was that this business of liking and disliking things or
"freshness" vs "staleness" if you want, is what creates rocks and steel
just as much as it creates our own feelings. The only hint that we have
that this is more than a fancy idea is the strange behavior of quantum
matter so that seems like the best place to look for evidence.
>
> > It's interesting to try to think and write these ideas without sliding
> > into the conundrum of the subjective/objective dichotomy. The mixing
of
> > the Unity and Dichotomy paradigms makes for troubled digestion--bring
on
> > the pepto bismo!
>
> Yes, it's extremely vexing, however the freshness of the possibility that
we might be able to solve The philosophical question of the twentieth
century is just too compelling to resist :-)
>
>
> Diana
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Make a name for yourself - Freemail@hongkong.com
> Hongkong.com Ltd. http://freemail.hongkong.com
>
>
>
> homepage - http://www.moq.org
> queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
> unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
> body of email
Diana, Donald, and Squad,
I have just this morning heard the news about the Nobel prize being
awarded to a trio for discovering a new fact or two about the negative
charge. If I interpreted the news report correctly the negative charge has
no lower limit, or maybe a very small lower limit, and could be considered
a sort of liquid in which everything is immersed. If my interpretation of
the report is correct then it means that the positive charge is the
determining factor, or the organizing principle around which all else is
built and the negative charge is a sort of liquid in which the universe
floats. This does violence to my current understanding of the relationship
between the positive and negative charges but such a situation may shed
some light on the mystery surrounding some of the Quantum interpretation.
Right off the bat it would seem to account for the operation of Quality at
all levels of complexity without let or hindrance. I have not thought about
this situation much yet but it seems to demand some changes in our
interpretation of the happenings at the quantum level.
I would be interested to know, first, if I heard the news right, and
secondly, if my interpretation agrees with anybody else's. Ken
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