From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 02:38:19 BST
In a message dated 6/4/03 1:36:32 AM GMT Daylight Time, pi@mideel.ath.cx
writes:
> Anyway, this is what I have to say about free will. Thoughts anyone? How
> would you answer such a question?
>
> - Pi
>
Hello Pi,
I broadly agree with what is being said.
I would add that patterns are capable of being coerced into a coherent state
that is at both once static and yet open to dynamic influence. Such stable
patterned ritual behaviour may sound rather boring and uniform from a western
perspective, but may be better described as coherent and lively from an MoQ
perspective. Once Quality behaviour is experienced it can be difficult to choose
lower Quality? In this sense, we are not free? Sadly, Quality behaviour for many
is rather too dynamic and destructive, the trick appears to be to establish a
static component that has a stable relationship with a Dynamic counterpart.
An analogy would be the electrodynamics of a laser? Atoms in a laser briefly
reach a coherent state in which all outer electron shells are shifting at the
same time to and from the same states. (Viewed as inorganic patterns of value,
atoms behaving in this coherent state may have organic and social analogues?)
The laser has a coherent base with the ability to provide a dynamic response.
That's a poor analogy, but i'm sleepy and cant think of a better one at the
moment!
Its good to read MoQ post in the forum.
squonk
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 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 02:38:51 BST