For the time being, I am treating awareness as the entire model, both static and Dynamic Quality, for the reasons implied by my interpetation of Godel's Theorum(s). While we are not aware of DQ, without it we would have no awareness, and so it must be acknowledged by virtue of our being aware in the first place. Godels Theorum states:
1) If S is consistent, G is not provable in S. 2) If S is consistent, G is not provable in S - making G of S such that niether G or ~(the negation of) G is provable in S.
By now, the gentle reader will be saying to him/her self, what the hell could this possibly have to do with the MOQ? And what the hell does it mean anyway?? Actually, the idea it outlines is very simple in explanation, yet contains very deep complexities, much like the MOQ itself.
Godel's Theorum, sometimes called his Incompleteness Theorums, tells us that in any formal system adequate for number theory, there exists an undecidable formula...that is, a formula that is not provable and who's negation is not provable. The only way to provide proof is to introduce a 'higher' system, yet this higher system will itself contain an undecidable formula, necessitating yet a higher system to provide proof. Godel proved that this is true no matter how 'high' the system is.
This leads to the 'many truths' notion of quantum physics, which seems in direct contradiction to our everyday static quality reality of life until it is put into the context of the MOQ. Godel shows us that we cannot prove, nor disprove, anything in our static reality without going outside that reality, or into Dynamic Quality. Since the MOQ says this is impossible, it leads to much confusion until we say that MOQically:
Static quality contains many unprovable truths, while Dynamic Quality contains these unprovable truths within an unreachable provable truth. Despite being unreachable, the proof of Dynamic Quality lies in our awareness of its passing, which we call static quality.
Here we notice the distinction between provable and truth provided by Godel's Theorum. This distinction allows us to solve many paradoxes, or platypi, in the subject/object mechanistic viewpoint assoicated with the western world. For example, I can make the sentence 'This statement is not true' which is a paradox, because it implies its negation, and the negation implies the sentence. If I exchange 2 little words, 'provable' and 'true', I can make the statement 'This sentence is not provable' and the paradox does not appear.
Let G represent that sentence. As far as provable goes, we merely assume that that sentence G is true and unprovable, while its negation is false and unprovable. The surprize here is that we have to introduce a distinction between true and provable, otherwise the paradox will return.
What hope is there in fitting this into a model of awareness? By seeing how relational interactions arise between individuals, we can perhaps view awareness as a reflection of these interactions within the individual. In this viewpoint, the subject and object become subservient to the relational awareness arising due to the event itself.
Here I have attempted to represent the expansional way in which awareness encompasses our reality and those around us. The possibilities of expansive relational events increases dramatically as the four layers of the MOQ are precessed. The first layer represents awareness of self, the second, awareness of others as family, the third layer awareness of others as a society, and the fourth layer represents awareness of the collective knowledge made available by social interactions and the notion of a Quality driven universe.
I are unable to say that awareness arises in any specific point, therefore I feel it is best to view the entire model as a model of awareness, and to say that awareness is Quality. We can say there is a strong duality within awareness that is used in Quantum physics to explain reality. We can view the MOQ from either a static viewpoint, one of everyday reality, or a dynamic viewpoint, one of what has been termed mystic reality.
For the sake of clarity, I will attempt to present these pages from the dynamic viewpoint of reality with the understanding I will have to use static language in the process.