From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 03:03:40 BST
David M,
I agree with all this (I think) except for one thing: I see no need in it
for the Q. What you are describing here is like Coleridge's "two forces of
one Power" -- and I'll take your word for it that Schelling said something
similar. Now I agree that whatever that Power is, it includes Quality, but
that is not all it includes. Overall, I think Reason or Intelligence is a
better name than Quality (and there many other names: Love, Wisdom, etc.),
but I prefer Reason since it more easily lends itself to relation with our
own reason as a pale version ("through a glass darkly") of Reason.
But regardless, the MOQ doesn't allow it, since it places intellect and
reason at the fourth *static* level.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: MD The final solution or new frustration.
> Scott/Platt
>
> I think Scott's discomfort about MOQ can
> perhaps be overcome if we start to see
> Quality as a more inclusive concept, so inclusive in fact
> that it becomes a non-concept as it has no other.
> When we start to talk about SQ and DQ as capable
> of explaining the whole cosmos we are handling two
> very loaded concepts. What is DQ? I take it as being
> related to the unstoppable flow of reality through
> our experience. I take it as embodied in the fullness
> of possibilty that is spread out ahead of the present
> finite reality. What is SQ? It allows the cosmos
> to be finite and actual, it is not a cosmos of unique
> dissipating energy, transforming and transforming like
> a firework. The cosmos leaves traces that fill up the present.
> Patterns repeat. This is the very oddest of odds. DQ implies
> freedom, it seems to imply creativity. SQ implies limitation,
> it is a sacrifice of DQ, where SQ is DQ has withdrawn.
> Sq says, something new -No, the same again. Why is this
> happening. DQ is not limited. DQ can make the move
> A or B or C or D. Does DQ choose? How does DQ choose?
> Can DQ see the future? Does DQ consider the consequences
> of its choices? Does it value A more or B or C or D?
> What is without limit surely has choice? Or is it a cosmos of chaos?
> The anthropic principle questions this. I think few of us would
> consider design. But what of intelligence? What is intelligence?
> Intelligence implies choice/timing/intervention. It also implies
> knoweldge of SQ, it also implies that for DQ the future is perceived.
> Perceiving the future means being able to look into the future, to be
> able to say that there are many possible futures, that there is future
> A or B or C or D, etc. Choice actualises one future and abandons
> or sacrifices all the other possible futures. Choice moves through
> all possible futures and this movement is what we call actual reality.
>
> I suggest that Quality is SQ and DQ it is also intelligent and it also
> demonstrates agency and this implies activity and values.
> The sacrifice by Quality of DQ to SQ is what creates time and
> finite existence. It is the sacrifice of DQ to SQ that causes the
> forgetting of DQ, the hiding of DQ. We start to see everything
> more and more in terms of SQ, hence we march our way to SOM.
> We get hold of SQ, we become masters of SQ, we manipulate
> and technologies SQ. We even think we can explain DQ in terms of
> SQ. But originally, SQ and DQ are One. Subject and object are One.
> As for human being, how clearly we take a ride with DQ, how clearly
> we are da-sein, being-the-there, at this moment in time, in
> this situation of static patterns, and how clearly we are pressing
> on, pulled by the future, embodied by our projects, pulling the future
> towards
> us, one future pulled towards us, all the other possible futures
sacrificed.
> And where we are now, the present situation caused by all the possible
> futures that have beedn sacrificed. Situation=limitation=the sacrifice of
> in the past of the possible to create the finite/definite yet open
present.
> We are born in a present, in a situation now of our own chosing, but
> DQ has already chosen for us. But DQ does not abandon us, she
> picks us up at birth, she is full of possibilities for us. Perhaps
> when we ask about all the SQ that already occupies our world
> she whispers in our ear. As for intelligence, most of the cosmos
> was achieved without human intelligence, perhaps the human component
> of intelligence is not so large, what we like to call our intelligence is
> not so uniquely ours, or perhaps we should associate what we are
> less with the static patterns of our physical being? To be what we are,
> is just to surf a certain flow of being around a moving point, in time
> and space, a process of interplay between SQ and DQ, a certain
> collapse of the wave function (i.e. many possibles becoming an
> actual event) to produce the event of a human life within the event of
> the cosmos.
>
> regards
> David Morey
>
>
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 : Sun Sep 28 2003 - 03:22:20 BST