For the record, goodness = useful.
On Oct 5, 2010, at 4:15 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > Andre, > > I, in no way equate, 'ever-changing' with 'TOTALLY different'. No way! No > where! > And I have stated repeatedly that 'relative' does not mean 'all is equal'. > Within the > MoQ, for example, social static patterns of value are a higher value than > inorganic > static patterns of value. And the reference to nihilism is unexplained and > nonsense. > What you can say about the Conventional Reality is that its evolution was > based on > goodness, that relative truths (static patterns of value) are useful. > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 3:24 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: > >> Dave to DMB: >> >> There is no such thing as a static pattern. Another case of RMP privileging >> rhetoric. Stable patterns, sure, but static in the sense of never changing, >> fixed, eternal there are none. Frankly you keep getting all over Marsha for >> using "ever changing" in regard to static patterns when I for the life of me >> cannot think of one static pattern that does not change. >> >> Andre: >> Correct Dave and this 'difficulty with Pirsig's terminology that should be >> noted >> ( as Anthony observes in his PhD)is the ambiguity of the term 'static' due >> to its >> connotations with the movement of physical objects even though this isn't >> the sense >> in which Pirsig (1994) understands the term. >> >> 'According to the Metaphysics of Quality all objects, whether they move or >> not, are >> physical patterns of value and are therefore static patterns of quality. >> Static and >> Dynamic Quality patterns are not properties of objects. Objects are a >> property of >> static quality'. >> >> 'A proposed modification therefore is the term 'stable' which avoids this >> ambiguity but >> retains the essential meaning of 'static' that the MOQ requires'. (p76) >> >> There is stability in the patterns as they denote repeated arrangements. >> Marsha, by using >> the 'ever changing' rhetoric makes a 'stable' discussion impossible by >> arguing for a >> relativism based on this 'ever changing'. This makes any discussion, any >> walk down the >> street, any talk of a tree ridiculous as from the first moment to the next >> the discussion, >> the walk (my body, my shoes), the street, the tree has changed. >> >> The 'properties' may change but the value is 'stable'. >> >> To reduce everything to 'ever changing' stuff,and ,by implication, TOTALLY >> different, to the >> point of not being able to say anything meaningful about it is to reduce our >> 'conventional world' >> to a nonsense. It is nihilism, a cul-de-sac a dead end street. >> >> It is to fundamentally misunderstand the DQ/sq relationship. >> >> PS, I thought it was you Dave, who referred to Austin's 'Zen and the Brain'. >> I am chewing on it. >> Thank you for attending me to it. > > > > ___ > > > 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
