From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Dec 21 2003 - 12:27:45 GMT
Hi
I think the point is that freedom and
openness really means having more
possibilities. Hence, complex arrangements
of SQ, like Man, possess more possibilities
and hence more DQW options. The point
then is to refer to quality and choice. Openness
is not use if you can not choose the better
over the poorer option. No such thing as freedom
to do anything, that would be infinite and nothing to do
with a finite/actual world. Constraint equals few options
like atoms cancelling each others activity/agitation out
in a molecular structure. Freedom is like an electron that
can pass through either slit in a grid. Human freedom
means we hae many possibilities but they are clearly not infinite
for a given individual. The possible is always richer than the real
as Prigogine says.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Peterson" <peterson.steve@verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: MD MoQ versions
> Hi Wim,
>
> > Steve asked 16 Dec 2003 18:59:00 -0500:
> > 'Could you explain what static patterns "migrating towards DQ" means to
you?
> > ... Are static patterns static or not?'
> >
>
> Wim quoted:
> >The increase in versatility is directed
> > toward Dynamic Quality. The increase in power to control hostile forces
is
> > directed toward static quality. Without Dynamic Quality the organism
cannot
> > grow. Without static quality the organism cannot last. Both are needed.'
>
> Thanks, Wim. To clarify, could you give an example of a pattern that is
> more versatile than another? Would I be correct in saying that
versatility
> is an openness to dynamic improvement? Could I interpret 'static patterns
> migrating towards DQ' as meaning that newer patterns tend to be better
than
> older ones?
>
> The statement 'static patterns "migrating towards DQ' sounds to me like
> static patterns become closer and closer to being DQ which makes no sense
to
> me, since I think of the dynamic/static quality distinction as
un-patterned
> (undefined)/patterned (definable) experience. I can see no middle ground
> for patterns to be more or less "patterned" though your descriptions of
> patterns in terms of stability and versatility make sense to me (assuming
I
> have it right above.)
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
>
>
> 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 : Sun Dec 21 2003 - 15:29:55 GMT