From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri May 16 2003 - 11:05:26 BST
Hi Squonk
> The Metaphysics of Quality is a work of intellectual
> art. All universities
> should teach the MoQ IMHO. It may be the case that
> in doing so, many students
> find there is allot less to say and very much more
> to just sitting. They can
> then forget about the MoQ. How fashionable would
> that be?!
Yeah, try to put the MoQ to sleep, the new Zen method,
I like that.
> The Quality event may be seen
> as a coalescence in that
> tension dissipates and ease reigns? Horse and rider?
> Art requires that we
> loose ourselves. And if everything is art, then we
> become a barrier to its
> execution? What do you think?
I think you've turned the Quality event on its head,
see:
My interpretation is that the Quality event is the
differentiation of the undifferentiated - distinct
patterns emerge from the unpatterned
Your interpretation (as I see it) is that the Quality
event is the coalescence of the differentiated -
distinct patterns merge in a new pattern
You see our different perspectives? Now, a classic SOM
view may see this as a paradox, pick one or the other.
But I think both are right at the same time.
The Quality event is at once a coalescence and a
differentiation. If you pick one answer you lose the
insight of the other. Lila has Quality and Quality has
Lila. As Mr Herrigel lamented: 'Is "It" spiritual when
seen by the eyes of the body, and corporeal when seen
by the eyes of the spirit-or both or neither?'
> sq: I don't view DQ and SQ as a polarity.
Polarity as in known-unknown, particle-wave,
static-Dynamic. One completes the other. Not dichotomy
like subject-object or true-false.
> Many
> things may be said of SQ but
> nothing may be said of DQ.
Well, I see that DQ cannot be defined but it may be
described. In a way, all of SQ once described DQ?
> sq: This is giving me problems. I think the problem
> lies in my thinking that
> agency implies causation; Agents are causally
> related centres of action?
Perhaps agency is a loaded term. I was using it in the
sense that meant the opposite of causation in that it
represents the ability to exercise and act on a
preference without specific authority or permission.
But the point is that whilst it is easy for us to
grasp our own ability to make choices (free will v
determinism platypi notwithstanding), seeing this as a
universal and ubiquitous ability is a major departure
from classical causation but is a key assumption in
the MoQ. From the ability to make choices arises the
question of good and bad choices, or morality, good
choices are moral. Everything makes choices in the
MoQ. That's my point.
> sq.: Can only say what i say, but certainly hope it
> helps? You inspire
> patience, and i hope for your patience also Paul.
> Maybe you have a better way
> of looking at all this than i do? That is a very
> exciting prospect. Thank
> you.
Likewise
Thanks
Paul
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
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 : Fri May 16 2003 - 11:06:12 BST