Hi David, I would not consider what I provided as a definition. In fact it is much less so than your definition of DQ as that which causes change. Perhaps you can support such a contention (?). I do not believe you can. A bullet causes change, but it is far from DQ. Patterns change completely when you are dead.
Perhaps you should consider your own definitions. Before commenting on what you think are another's definition. I would not go so far as to say that dynamic quality creates change. But that is how I read it. I am providing a perspective, not a definition. There is a big difference.
By the way, there are no patterns from the inside looking out, that would be impossible. Think about it.
> Hi Mark, > > I am a stickler on this forum and generally against any definition of Dymamic Quality as I think that any definition you give destroys DQ and the MOQ. In that light I dislike the definition of Dynamic Quality as 'the inside out' or 'creativity'. I see these things as exactly that, two different static quality things and thus not Dynamic Quality. That said, I would describe creativity as a direct result of and reaction to Dynamic Quality but of course not Dynamic Quality itself. > > -David > > On 15/01/2012, at 1:33 PM, 118 wrote: > >> Hi David, >> Well put. Another way, I think, to differentiate between sq and DQ, is that the former is looking from "the outside in" whereas the latter is looking from "the inside out". I can elaborate on this, but I do not know how you understand what I present. >> >> So I will leave it at: Our creativity is DQ, what we create is sq. that would be answer 4732 which I have provided, but they all say the same thing. >> >> Sent laboriously from an iPhone, >> Mark >> >> On Jan 14, 2012, at 5:55 PM, David Harding <davidjharding@gmai...> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha et al, >>> >>> I think there needs to be a few distinctions made here. >>> >>> Firstly, the word 'relativity' from a SOM perspective is a problem. 'All truths are relative and so we don't really know what's true' is a SOM statement. From the perspective of the MOQ, relativity simply implies that a comparison between two patterns has been made. This comparison is itself a pattern like every other and is not a requirement for static patterns to exist. To say that static patterns are relative is like saying they exist because any comparison creates a pattern. All we can say about static patterns existing is that they do exist and are better than nothing. Right? >>> >>> Secondly, there is a distinction is between the 'truth' of something and that thing itself. For instance there is a difference between the idea or truth of a tree and the 'treeness' that you experience. Or to put it another way, there is a difference between the intellectual level 'truth' of a tree and the biological tree. >>> >>> Finally, there is another important distinction between ordinary everyday static quality perspective and the perspective of DQ. In ordinary, everyday land, static patterns do not change and they are very permanent. In order for static quality patterns to change, that requires Dymamic Quality. From the perspective of Dynamic Quality, or enlightenment, there are no patterns. >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> >>>> I take the term 'truth' to mean "conformity with fact or reality". In most definitions, “reality” is pretty much defined as “that which exists”. In the MoQ, static patterns on value exist; exist not as independent, inherent entities, but as patterns. As such, I take static patterns of value to represent truths. When I present my definition of 'static patterns of value', I am presenting my definition of 'truths': >>>> >>>> Static patterns of value are processes, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized, that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. Within the MoQ, these patterns are categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns. Patterns exist relative to innumerable causes and conditions (patterns), relative to parts and the collection of parts (patterns), relative to conceptual designation (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent existence. Further, these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static pattern of life history. >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html