Heya all! I'm Joe. Just started lurking around here. Is there an FAQ about the various abbreviations floating around? I've caught on to most, but still.
Thanks, and nice to meet ya'll. Joe Wagoner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. A simply suggestion, but would you expect otherwise (Heather Perella) 2. Re: This Event (Ron Kulp) 3. What is metaphysics to you? (Ron Kulp) 4. Re: Summum bonum (Heather Perella) 5. Re: What is metaphysics to you? (MarshaV) 6. Re: The End of Faith - Spirituality (MarshaV) 7. Re: thoughts on their own? (Heather Perella) 8. Re: Birth of subjects & objects ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:32:26 -0800 (PST) From: Heather Perella Subject: [MD] A simply suggestion, but would you expect otherwise To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Well, Magnus asked if we all could put in our perspective of what metaphysics is before commenting, and of course Craig and Bo, and there may have been one other person couldn't even do this. Shows a lot. And Bo, your comments - hilarious! SA ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:01:50 -0500 From: "Ron Kulp" Subject: Re: [MD] This Event To: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > Ron: > There is, value forms patterns of energy which > define inorganic patterns > Which define organic patterns, social patterns, > intellectual patterns. > The whole casaba. Value distinction. SA: I guess I'm having difficulty with understanding, "value forms". Is this an active role that value takes? Value is doing an activity called 'forming'? Ron: I think value is the activity called forming. It is the act of making distinctions. >From atoms to thoughts about atoms. > SA previously: Well, it depends on what kind of change, > correct? > Domination for a change that is not dynamic and is > not for a higher moral level, this is domination > that will speed the process, but not one that is for the > better... > Ron: > Right, you got it. Better/worse are subjective > interpretations Of the value act. SA: "Subjective"? - meaning performed by a person? Or "subjective" - meaning not able to be 'judged'/'valued' as more true than something else? I don't know. Ron: The second one "subjective" - meaning [able] to be 'judged'/'valued' as more true or better than something else. Maybe I should have dropped the term and left it as Interpretation. > SA previously: How is "complete balance" these events or > "prone" events? Isn't balance dq and sq working together > well? Thus, dynamic quality, a static latch, the > gumption remains, and this process continues. > Ron: > Balance is, yes. But absolute balance where things > become equal Is a type of domination it is not dynamic any more. SA: I guess I'm having difficulty with "equal" being the same as "domination". They seem contradictory. Yet, I think what your saying, I'm going to take a shot in the dark, is when all becomes equal, the wheels lock, everything gets a fair share, nothing can be ahead or more moral, and this would mean the code of art is no more. By code of art, I mean dq more moral than sq. Ron: Right again. Ron: > When a see-saw is see-sawing it is in the act of > balancing If one side dominates, say a fat kid, the see-sawing > stops. If there are two fat kids of equal weight perfectly > balanced The see-sawing stops too. But when that see sawing > is happening In balanced harmony, that's the sweet spot where > patterns linger Yet ever open to change. It's the act, the process > what gives Balance. SA: I think I see what you mean. Was my example above, in my previous comment, what you meant? Ron: Exactly on. > Ron: > The value process is prime in the MoQ not > Superiority, superiority is a subjective > Interpretation. the act of value, of dynamic balance > Is what is supreme, much the same way Aristotle > Describes ar?te as per the golden mean. SA: Yes, by trying to figure out what's on the intellectual level, and what's lower morally, thus, on the social level, is an activity of playing 'king of the hill'. To keep trying to prove that one's view is more superior takes away any inspiration. I view the act of inspiration as including compassion, kindness, etc... For inspiration is to occur when something dynamic occurs, or something better (for somebody, it may not for somebody else), but inspiration lifts one to think they are on to something worthwhile. I could go more into this, but I've got to go to work and I want to send this before I leave. I don't think we're finished with this last comment in this post. Ron: I am enjoying the exchange SA, it is refreshing to move along so clearly. I appreciate your effort tremendously, thank you for caring enough To make an effort at understanding what I'm trying to say, it speaks Volumes about your character. woods, ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:09:02 -0500 From: "Ron Kulp" Subject: [MD] What is metaphysics to you? To: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" BO: all who believe that the MOQ is a mere theory ABOUT Quality aren't true Quality Metaphysicians. Ron: In some ways you are correct. Utilization of those intellectual thoughts in everyday reality as per immediate experience (pre-intellectual) is A state of experiential enlightenment when wrought through the 4th level. Your Q awareness. I've been with you on this. Bo: the root of all troubles is Pirsig himself who in LILA starts with the correct definition: But even then the assertion that metaphysics is meaningless sounded false to him. As long as you're inside a logical, coherent universe of thought you can't escape metaphysics. ... but then swerves away from it and ends up in the Aristotelian (SOM) on metaphysic a subjective theory about an objective something out there. The fact that the "objective" now is Quality instead of Reality doesn't make any difference, the MOQ as a subjective theory about objective Quality makes it a SOM variety. Ron: When looking at it from SOMOQ eyes it does. Pirsig states it is value All the way, baby. From atoms to thoughts about atoms. All patterns of value are static patterns of value, the ACT of the value function is dynamic. This is not a split. It is like splitting a particle from the field the cause is the effect, the effect is the cause. Bo: Only the clear cut of declaring the DQ/SQ as the Quality Reality gives the MOQ its mighty explanatory power. Without it, it's impotent. Ron: We have no way of knowing if DQ is actually a separate entity from SQ As far as I understand Pirsig, DQ is SQ. one does not exist without the Other, two aspects of a single phenomena, Quality. In SOM terms it is A rather difficult concept as you stated. MoQ in MoQ terms, just is, as patterns of quality that an SOMOQ ist Would view as a subjective theory about an objective something out there. IMO Back to my nap. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:36:51 -0800 (PST) From: Heather Perella Subject: Re: [MD] Summum bonum To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Ron: > If happiness and virtue are mutually exclusive, we have > to choose between > the two, and this choice is a momentous one. But > their incompatibility > may be only on the surface. Indeed the hope is ever > recurring that the > sovereign good includes both, and that there is some > way of reconciling them. SA: In this statement right here is the change over, from s/o or samsara to quality or enlightenment. It is a matter of what's in the middle. Call it the "/", on the yin-yang symbol it's a wavy line down the middle with some yin in yang and yang in yin. It is the abyss, Kali, Shiva, the Void, it is "?" where answers are good answers, but the '?' remains, it is the prong in the middle of the fork, it is the forked tree in Amerindian where there are two branches on a tree and the whole tree is not forgotten, in the west the suffering is guilt-ridden by some G-d in the clouds, whereas in the east suffering is humanized into misjudgment and wonder and inspiration remains, it is Christ saying he is one with G-d, the west tries to pull the fabric of reality apart declaring a Fall the east feels the impulse of the universe, the west says there's the tree of knowledge and all are barred from the tree of life whereas in the east the tree of life never left, it is not separation and sickness, but it is compassion and empathy, and it is not complicated by two, but made simple by one, etc..., etc... and as Campbell puts it so well as follows: "For the calmly ruthless power of the jungle and consequent orientation of its folk (the Proto-Autraloid aborigines of that world of static vistas, with no history but duration) has supplied the drone base of whatever song has ever been sung in India of man {SA comments: this is the chapter on India, thus, why the India reference, but notice the metaphysics}, his destiny, and escape from destiny. New civilizations, races, philosophies, and great mythologies have poured into India and have been not only assimilated but greatly developed, enriched, and sophisticated. Yet, in the end (and, in fact, even secretly throughout), the enduring power in that land has always been the same old dark goddess of the long red tongue who turns everything into her own everlasting, awesome, yet finally somewhat tedious, self... ... with respect to Indian mythology, therefore, is that its deepest root is in the soil of the timeless equatorial world of the ritual death from which life proceeds... ...that the interdependence of death and sex, their import as the complementary aspects of a single state of being, and the necessity of killing-killing and eating-for the continuance of this state of being, which is that of man on earth, and of all things on earth, the animals, birds, and fish, as well as man-this deeply moving, emotionally disturbing glimpse of death as the life of the living is the fundamental motivation..." [Campbell; Oriental Mythology; Ch. 4] SA continues: No matter how much one might try to separate reality, I don't see a gaping hole where I live, maybe somebody does, and if so I could make a visit somebody and try to cross the separation gap and see if I still come out ok on the other side. SA ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:38:01 -0500 From: MarshaV Subject: Re: [MD] What is metaphysics to you? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hmmm. Is that so? Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:50:10 -0500 From: MarshaV Subject: Re: [MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Greetings Ham, Below couldn't you have just as easily written: 'Value is the actualization of experience.'? Marsha At 01:15 PM 2/29/2008, you wrote: >[Platt]: > > Quality equals reality. Quality equals morality. Ergo, > > reality equals morality. The MOQ segments morality > > (reality) into four levels from the lowest (inorganic) to > > the highest (intellectual). The problem is that the > > current intellectual pattern is dominated by a mistaken > > view of reality, a subjective-objective view, that is blind > > to any morals except old traditional social morals. That > > blindness has led to all sorts of problems ... > >[Ron]: > > I think what I take issue with, and this may be my own > > misinterpretation of your words, is that superiority means > > something outside of what it refers too. I see the focus > > of MoQ being the act of making that choice, for whatever > > reason. Better-ness is subjective but the act of formulating > > what that is, to me, is a balancing act of varying patterns > > across the levels. What's best keeps in mind what's > > best across the board, inorganic, organic, social and > > intellectual relative to the value judgment. > >What life teaches us is that existence is problematic, imperfect, and >amoral. This is because the subjective self is separated from its >undifferentiated source and senses only its value. Ron has almost nailed it >down. Being-aware is, indeed, "the act of making that choice...the focus of >MoQ [the perfect source]...the act of formulating... balancing...various >patterns across the levels. What's best [is]...what's best...relative to >the value judgment." > >Experience is the actualization of value. The role of the individual in a >relational universe is to make sense of what is problematic, to harmonize >what is dissident, to make moral what is immoral, and to balance the >inorganic, social and intellectual factors relative to oneself. Through this >process we each bring into being a valuistic perspective of that which in >Essence is Perfection. > >In short, there is a simple solution to the existential problem. All we >have to do is realize why we're here, and choose accordingly. > >Essentially yours, >Ham > >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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:51:22 -0800 (PST) From: Heather Perella Subject: Re: [MD] thoughts on their own? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Akshay: > What do you mean by creatures? All creatures are > dependent, hence there can > be no "on their own". SA: I mean 'free'. What I'm trying to explain is how thoughts have a certain freedom detached from human influence to a certain extent. Now where the line is drawn has grown and in some ways ideas have lasted for thousands and thousands, tens of thousands years up to present human practice. I see ideas as parasites, living much longer than a human life span, and will last in books and the internet for a very long time. Of course, humans are necessary to reproduce and decipher ideas, but ideas show a tendency that they can live without humans. They are not trapped in skin and bones. Akshay: > Let's not forget that thoughts, at least within the > framework of the MoQ, > are *patterns*. Patterns are based on discernible > similarities and > differences in computation, not information. Nothing > can really exist by itself. SA: Your correct. I completely agree. "Nothing can really exist by itself". It is all connected. This is what Ron and I are discussing in the [MD] This Event. snow, more snow, this region hasn't had this much snow in a very long time, the snow is coming down again - lots of it! SA ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:07:30 +0000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MD] Birth of subjects & objects To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain [Ham] > According to your analysis, Pirsig systemizes two realities as constituting > the MoQ: the experiential (S/O) and the pre-conceptual (DQ). I think it would be better to say: "two ASPECTS OF REALITY as constituting the MoQ: the CONCEPTUAL EXPERIENCE of S/O (SQ) and the pre-conceptualEXPERIENCE (DQ)."[Ham]> If [DQ] is not a concept, it could not have been conceived.This is a use/mention mistake. I can conceive of a 5 legged stool, butthat doesn't make it a concept rather than a piece of furniture. [Ham]> what makes the conceptualized system more "fundamental" than the experienced> system?The pre-conceptual DQ is more fundamental than SQ.Craig ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Moq_Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 27, Issue 146 ******************************************** "...have measured out my life with coffee spoons." - T.S. Eliot --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
