1. SOLISPSISM
2. THE DEFINITION OF DQ
3. DO THINGS EVOLVE TOWARDS OR AWAY FROM DQ?
Hi David, squad
David wrote:-
>Roger Glove Mary Mangus - Walter Jeff and all the lurkers who know they
>should chime in:
I hate to admit it, but after several months of active contribution, I
have indeed become just another lurker.
Now I see three subjects resurging, which all relate to the way we view
DQ, SQ and their interrelationship.
The first is this solipsism/mysticism business.
David:-
>Roger says, "Static quality is patterned, conceptualized experience".
>
>Glove says, "The universe has no order other than what the ... self
>agrees it has."
>
>Mary says, "Static quality isn't made of anything other than a mental
>abstraction".
>
>Mangus says, "The QE is the source of 2 static patterns, each one being
>the subject from its point of view"
>
>See what I'm getting at yet? The only thing I can think to call it is
>Solipsism.
The MoQ is easily twisted into a solipsism or into its antithesis, but
this is because it is NEITHER.
The relationship between DQ and SQ is the process of REALization. DQ
alone is UNREAlized - it only becomes evident upon realization, so we
can easily reject DQ as unreal. On the other hand, SQ patterns are
always relataive, and always a restricted subset of the possible
patterns which might be realized. Thus it is easy to take a solipsist
approach and regard SQ as simply maps and illusions. MoQ seems to allow
both views to coexist in a non-contradictory way. Actually, it seems
that the main problem is language - what we actually mean by REALITY.
The next subject that has resurged is the definition of DQ.
Horse (on DQ):
> Q1)I'm happy with any of the following as they essentially say the
same thing:
> Change (Horse)
> Potential (Jonathan)
> How things become (Magnus)>>>>>>
Mary
>Ok then, say change and strike the other 2....
I think that "change" is insufficient, because it is a relative term.
The position of the earth is constantly CHANGING, yet the earth follows
a CONSTANT orbit around the sun. That apparent contradiction is one
cornerstone of Newton's mechanics. My own definition and also Magnus's
carry some implication of "realization".
Finally we have the direction of evolution - towards DQ or away from it?
DQ (as potential) can be realized, but there is no way to reverse that
process.
That can be regarded as both a philosophical statement and a statement
of the second law of thermodynamics!
To me, evolution "towards" or "away from" DQ makes no sense. Evolution
is by definition a process of change from one set of static patterns to
a new set of static patterns. The relationship between DQ and the
direction of change is in
the "potential difference" which determines which pattern is favoured.
Jonathan
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST