From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 24 2004 - 18:51:19 BST
Hi
guys, too much dq=flux, too much SQ=law and balanced dq/sq=creativity &
capacity
to climb up the levels, via patterns & creativity
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ilya Korobkov" <korobkov_ilya@mail.ru>
To: "Valuemetaphysics@aol.com" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 10:18 AM
Subject: Re[12]: MD DYNAMIC PRESSURE (?)
> Hi Mark,
>
> Vac> Mark 22-8-04: ...Perhaps you would like to reflect upon
> Vac> the Stagnation/Coherence/Chaos continuum a little more?
>
> I think hard on the subject Mark, and the more I think the less I seem to
> understand, and the more weird looks the discussion itself...
>
>
>
>
> Vac> Mark 22-8-04: Indeed. Static patterning protects from too much
Dynamic
> Vac> influence. What may be the optimum balance between openness and
static protection?
>
> Protection OF WHAT, Mark? Static protection of static patterns? How
> can static patterns protect themselves? They EMERGE out of nothingness
> in the act of experience (DQ), don't they? And they do not become
> independent of DQ upon emergence, do not "live their own life" - they
> live as long as they are experienced, don't they? If so, what means
> "openness of static patterns to DQ"? They cannot be closed to DQ by
> definition! And cannot be MORE or LESS open to DQ - it just make no
> sense to say so!
>
> Oh hell, my head is gonna blow up...
>
>
>
>
> Vac> From The edge of chaos:
> Vac> The sweet spot is postulated as a coherent state somewhere between
these two
> Vac> extremes. [Chaos and stagnation] At the sweet spot of Dynamic Quality
(DQ), a
> Vac> pattern is neither too static or unstable.
>
> What do you mean when you say the [static] pattern may be TOO static or
> unstable? TOO static or unstable FOR WHAT? It seems to me the notion
> of "TOO" staticness or unstableness implies patterns can behave NOT
> the only right way. - Could it really be so? Could the things really
> go not the right way?
>
> (P.S.: I mean, for things to go not the right way, there should exist
> that "the only right way". And MOQ, as far as I know, doesn't
> postulate it's existence.)
>
>
>
> Vac> Mark 22-8-04: I really do not believe you or i need another term
Ilya,
> Vac> "openness to DQ" may be rephrased, "patterned states open to DQ"
because patterns
> Vac> are the only things in the MOQ other than DQ. I think that is just
fine. All
> Vac> coherence does is take these, "patterned states open to DQ" and
arranges them in
> Vac> a continuum from Stagnation (Hardly open to DQ at all) through
Coherence
> Vac> (Harmonious openness to DQ) to Chaos (disruptive openness to DQ).
>
> I still cannot comprehend how you manage to unite concepts of
> staticness/dynamicness ("openness to DQ") and coherence/incoherence
> into one-dimensional picture. I see it as TWO-dimensional. The first
> dimension is the relation of static pattern to DQ, the second - the
> relation of static pattern to other static patterns.
> With the latter dimention there seem to be no problem: we agreed that
> the relationship between static patterns may well be described in
> terms "coherence" - "incoherence".
> With the former dimention I see big problems. I feel intuitively what
> ought to be described but I cannot conceptualize it. The description of
> static pattern as something separate and independent of DQ (it's
> being "protected" or "open to DQ") seems absurd now. Trying to measure
> "the intensity of experience", on the other hand, seems close to
> trying to say something about DQ itself - and is wrong on THAT reason.
> Maybe we should look closely not at patterns but AT THE PROCESS of
emergence
> and passing away of static patterns? We may say, for example, that in
> some individuals the life span of static patterns is shorter then in
> others, right? May be this way of desctiption IS a solution, Mark?
> "The life span" approach...
>
>
>
>
> Vac> Mark 22-8-04: See? We are doing better than perhaps you thought?
> ...
> Vac> I hope this helps, let us keep moving forward! ;)
>
> Thank you for moral support, Mark! :)
>
> Best regards,
> Ilya
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 24 2004 - 19:31:16 BST