Thanks Platt, Problem is once explained I can see all sort of corrections I might want to make because of wrong, imprecise or inadequate wording. Oh well, I guess that is the nature of the beast.
Marsha On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Platt Holden wrote: > Marsha, > > I join Mary in thanking you for an superb explanation of your views. Very > convincing! > > Platt > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 9:35 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] Social Intellectual > > >> Thank you, very, very much, Marsha. Really excellent! >> >>> >>> On Jul 24, 2010, at 3:56 PM, david buchanan wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > dmb said to Marsha: >>> > Part of the problem is that you define static patterns as ever- >>> changing. That's like defining stable to mean unstable. It's just >>> plainly wrong. There is DQ and there is sq and "ever-changing" is a >>> good description of just one of them and it isn't the latter. There is >>> a 50-50 chance of getting that right but you blew it. >>> > >>> > Marsha replied: >>> > Think about patterns. They are not individual independent things. >>> They are value events. Some patterns are repeated millions of times. >>> Each event is slight different dependent on an individual's unique >>> history and the immediate dynamic experience. When I state patterns >>> are ever-changing that is what I mean. The static event has a >>> beginning, a middle and an end, and each static event is different. >>> They are ever-changing. Depending of the circumstances, a pattern >>> may be broad or tight. It can be so much more or so much less than a >>> dictionary definition, but SOM needs exact definition, intellect >>> desires exact definition, and they are related. This is why I >>> understand the MoQ to be beyond intellectual patterns, and like QP >>> beyond common sense and beyond language. I believe RMP to have given >>> us the MoQ in an intellectual form because it is all he had available, >>> BUT he is pointing beyond what an intellectual pattern can express. >>> > >>> > dmb says: >>> > >>> > Look, that's exactly what I was complaining about. You're >>> > describing static quality in terms of "events" and as "ever- >>> > changing". But that's how Pirsig characterizes dynamic quality. >>> >>> Dynamic Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. >>> That is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable!!! >>> >>> >>> > There is static and dynamic and you need BOTH. >>> >>> Of course! >>> >>> >>> > There is the value of order and stability and then there is >>> > freedom and growth. You're taking all the order and stability >>> > out of the MOQ >>> >>> Certainly I am not taking all the order and stability out of the MoQ. >>> Patterns are stable patterns, they are not ossified into objects. They >>> are patterns. >>> >>> >>> > and since the MOQ is itself a set of static intellectual patterns, >>> > this destabilizes the meanings and definitions that make up the >>> > MOQ. >>> >>> At the moment the MoQ is not a very stable pattern. The pattern >>> of belief that things independently exist in an external world is a >>> very stable pattern. The MoQ is a new intellectual pattern, and its >>> growth and longevity is yet to be determined. We hope! >>> >>> >>> > That's not really relativism. It's more like intellectual vandalism. >>> >>> Look, maybe your Blarney is useful in everyday banter, but it is >>> misplaced in philosophy. It is distracting commentary, and not >>> useful in explaining or trying to understand. >>> >>> >>> > DQ is rightly characterized as an event, a process, as the ongoing >>> > flux of life. This is CONTRASTED with the static patterns of quality >>> > which are derived from this cutting edge of experience. Static >>> intellectual >>> > truth are provisional. They evolve, sometimes quickly and sometimes >>> > over the course of centuries. But that doesn't mean they are ever- >>> changing. >>> >>> I don't mean they transform into something different, but they >>> are patterns, p-a-t-t-e-r-n-s. Gravity is a pattern of value. If I >>> asked a scientist to write down all he could on the subject of >>> gravity and asked you to write down all you can on the subject >>> of gravity, they would be different, but they would both be bits >>> and pieces of the gravity pattern. You might both write very >>> different explanations but both of you might be correct. A >>> pattern is not limited to finite definition. Patterns can be >>> amorphous and still be stable. >>> >>> >>> > It just means they evolve and develop. "Provisional" truths >>> > exists presently and function as truths precisely because >>> > they are stable and ordered and they are open to revision >>> > at some later time if and when such a revision is warranted. >>> >>> I agree. Presently and in memory. >>> >>> >>> > I mean, to say truth is provisional does not mean that it's >>> > fluid or in flux. >>> >>> It is amorphous. I bet there are aspects of gravity you do not know, >>> or >>> have forgotten and may be remembered at another gravity pattern >>> event. >>> >>> >>> > Static concepts need a certain level of stability or they can't >>> > function as concepts. >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> >>> > That's why they're called STATIC patterns. They're ordered >>> > and stable and finite. >>> >>> They are not finite! Finite would be a thing-in-itself. Patterns >>> are repeated or memorized events or processes. Habit. >>> >>> >>> > This is not a problem and is actually quite necessary. >>> >>> Ordered and stable is not a problem; finite IS a problem. >>> >>> >>> > It's only a problem is these stable tools become rigid and >>> > inflexible and not open to revision. >>> >>> Then drop the word finite. >>> >>> >>> > Otherwise, intellectual static patterns are the most evolved, >>> > most open to dynamic change and the most moral level of all. >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> >>> > If you construe the MOQ in such a way that this highest level of >>> > static quality is undermined and destabilized, the cause of freedom >>> > and growth has also been undermined. >>> >>> No need to exaggerate ever-changing into an absolute absurdity. Nor >>> exaggerate relative truths into an absolute absurdity, either. In the >>> MoQ, >>> truths are relative. At least that's how it was stated in Ant's >>> treatise. I am >>> not talking about moral relativity, but epistemological relativity. >>> >>> >>> > >>> > That's one reason why we need definitions and concepts and words to >>> > make sense and add up. >>> >>> I agree, but I take these to be provisional and pragmatically useful. >>> >>> >>> > This is the highest species of static good, not something to be >>> undermined >>> > or demonized or conflated with the disease from which it suffers. >>> >>> I have not sat through so many lectures on QP, for my health. I agree >>> with >>> you that intellectual static patterns of value are the highest species >>> of the good >>> as long it is understood that this remain provisional, patterns, not >>> finite >>> objects and independent self. >>> >>> >>> > When Pirsig says that thinking takes you away from reality, he's >>> saying that >>> > static patterns take you away from DQ. >>> >>> No disagreement here. But thinking takes you away from unpatterned >>> experience, which is something worth experiencing first-hand. >>> Thinking and talking about unpatterned experienced is not even close. >>> >>> >>> > He's saying there is a difference between concepts and DQ, not that >>> > concepts are evil things to be gotten rid of. >>> >>> I have never said concepts are evil. I have never said intellectual >>> patterns are evil. Never! I might say that to stop thoughts is >>> mediation >>> and a good thing, and meditation is a tried and true technique to move >>> towards becoming awakened/enlightened. And I might say that >>> we think too much and take our thoughts too seriously. And I might >>> say that lessons learned by 'not this, not that' are infinitely better. >>> >>> >>> > He's just saying that concepts are derived from something too rich >>> and >>> > thick and overflowing and fluid to be captured. >>> >>> I have no is some kind of personal description that I cannot relate to. >>> >>> >>> > Concepts are taken from experience the way a bucket of water can be >>> > taken from a continuously flowing river. It doesn't represent the >>> river so >>> > much as it isolates some small finite portion. As the bucket's wall >>> puts >>> > borders around a small part of the river, a concept puts borders >>> around >>> > a small portion of experience. The river and the bucket are both full >>> of >>> > water and so they are not ontologically distinct. >>> >>> Nothing new here... Stated in every entry-level Buddhist text. >>> There's >>> more to understand. >>> >>> >>> > So it is with concepts. They are derived from quality and they are >>> quality, >>> > the difference being that one is dynamic and the other is static. >>> > >>> > Static is good. Stale is bad. Dynamic is good. Degenerate is bad. >>> It's about >>> > balance, see, and your reading puts these two out of balance. >>> > >>> >>> >>> Thank you very, very much Dave. >>> >>> >>> 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
