Hello everyone On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:09 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > Thanks. My apologies, I will take a few deep breaths before I respond in > the future. I will certainly do my best to get current. As something of a > newcomer, I will ask questions. > > My questions to you in the post concerning your dismissal of Marsha, which > you responded to, were sincere. Perhaps when you have a chance you could > respond to them. In order for me to understand MOQ I believe an > understanding of the terms is necessary, some thought that goes into the > source of concepts such as SOM. Things arise for a reason. In my recent > response to A from Sweden, I proposed something concerning words. Any > response to that would be most welcome as well.
Hi Mark As I explained, your questions are meaningless in terms of the MOQ. Subject/object metaphysics is a collection of intellectual patterns of value that state reality is composed of a subject observing objects. Period. There is no room for values. In ZMM, Phaedrus goes to great lengths to show how Quality doesn't reside in either subject or object. It precedes them. Quality is left undefined. In LILA, Phaedrus decides to define Quality anyway... he compares his efforts to trying to keep the fat man out of the frig. Dynamic Quality is undefined while static quality is left in its wake. Dynamic Quality is what's better... not this, not that, as he puts it in LILA'S CHILD. Static quality is divided into four levels... Phaedrus says that if we were to construct an encyclopedia, everything would be contained within the four levels... every "thing" that is, except Dynamic Quality, which isn't a thing at all. In the MOQ, reality starts with experience. There is no reason why anything arises. The source and the destination of static quality patterns of value is Dynamic Quality. We are constantly defining Quality yet it can never be fully defined. It is inexhaustible. In ZMM, Phaedrus uses the term "Quality Event" to denote the source of subjects and objects, but in LILA, he abandons the term. Dynamic Quality is primary while static quality patterns of value are left in its wake. Still later, Robert Pirsig says that he saw how subjects and objects could be mapped onto the MOQ... subjects refer to social and intellectual patterns, while objects refer to inorganic and biological patterns. In this way, he marries philosophical idealism and scientific materialism under the umbrella of Quality. He states that there is no reason to get rid of the terms subject and object as long as it is remembered they refer to patterns of value, not to subject/object metaphysics. Now, my problem with Marsha (and Bodvar, of course) is her insistence that the intellectual level of the MOQ is identical to subject/object metaphysics. If you have followed what I said above, perhaps you can see the problem. Over ten years ago, Anthony McWatt confronted Bodvar on how SOM could be the intellectual level of the MOQ when Robert Pirsig indicates otherwise. Marsha's standard response is like Bodvar's... Robert Pirsig is wrong about his own metaphysics and their formulation is the "one, true MOQ." Anyway, perhaps you can see how deeply this goes, and why my attempting an explanation really doesn't begin to touch the surface. But it is all there to read in the archives. It is a valuable resource, in my opinion, and not a cop-out as some might lead you to believe. And yes, ten-plus years of discussions is quite formidable. But, if a person is serious, it is a place to start catching up. Thank you, Dan > > Cheers and over and out, > Mark > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello everyone >> >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:54 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Hello everyone >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi Dan, >> >> > >> >> > Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle >> that >> >> I >> >> > have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know what SOM is by >> >> definition. >> >> > When is it that something enters into the SOM realm? There seems to >> be >> >> a >> >> > lot of grey area which you are not describing. When are we actually >> >> using >> >> > SOM and when are we not? What is the boundary that defines one from >> the >> >> > other? Is there philosophy going on in a mystical state where there >> is >> >> no >> >> > separation? If so, how does this happen? How are we able to >> translate >> >> such >> >> > an experience otherwise? The intellect may have many components that >> are >> >> > not intellectual, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. A description, >> in >> >> > metaphysical terms of its arising would be most useful. It appears >> that >> >> > Marsha is attempting to define such boundaries. Could you please >> define >> >> > yours, and stop being so silly about it? I would like to see you >> defend >> >> > your rationale without resorting to some nonsensical not this not >> that. >> >> >> >> Dan: >> >> >> >> Mark, you obviously have A LOT of catching up to do before we can hold >> >> a reasonable discussion. Subject/object metaphysics holds that there >> >> are only a subject observing objects. Period. Reading your posts, I >> >> don't see that you've grasped that. When you ask: When is it that >> >> something enters the SOM realm... something doesn't enter the SOM >> >> realm. There isn't "something" out there called SOM. That is the >> >> fallacy that Robert Pirsig tried to correct with his Metaphysics of >> >> Quality. >> >> >> >> And for the record, I am not being silly. It is your lack of >> >> understanding that makes it seem so. Next thing you'll be calling me a >> >> retard, I suppose. Not this, not that has nothing to do with the >> >> definition of the intellectual level. Honestly, I am not teacher, >> >> Mark. I have very little patience with people who bounce in on their >> >> high horse spouting how smart they are. A good scientist would do the >> >> research... read the archives for starters... read Anthony McWatt's >> >> work... read LILA and ZMM... and if you claim to have read them, read >> >> them again. You haven't got the message. >> >> >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > Mark >> >> > >> >> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Hello everyone >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan < >> [email protected] >> >> > >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still >> don't >> >> see >> >> >> the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to >> >> miss, >> >> >> even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it >> merely >> >> >> insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have >> >> >> responded with a childish evasion. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a >> particular >> >> >> kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of >> philosophy, >> >> >> then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as "a formalized >> >> >> subject/object level (SOM)"? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's >> like >> >> >> defining "food" as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the >> >> first >> >> >> place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just >> the >> >> >> ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations >> and >> >> the >> >> >> like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's >> not >> >> to >> >> >> understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use >> to >> >> >> read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just >> thinking. >> >> >> Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, >> I >> >> >> characterized your reasoning as "spectacularly bad" and >> "spectacularly >> >> >> stupid" but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise >> >> >> explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child >> could >> >> >> have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual >> >> >> substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. >> >> Insult >> >> >> and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, >> is >> >> >> there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence >> >> mean >> >> >> absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you >> can >> >> >> cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction without >> >> >> embarrassment. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Therefore: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part >> of >> >> d >> >> >> in recent historic times? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > C'mon. Anyone can see how s)pectacularly bad that reasoning is, >> right? >> >> >> It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem >> with >> >> it >> >> >> is very clear, no? >> >> >> >> >> >> Dan comments: >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, I don't get it either... this facination of attempting to define >> >> >> the intellectual level as something it is obviously not, at least not >> >> >> in the framework of the MOQ. SOM as intellect (and I don't care how >> it >> >> >> is clothed, it is still SOM as intellect) is an unreasonable position >> >> >> that leads to nonsensical conclusions that any serious thinker is >> >> >> bound to reject. It is frustrating to spend so much time on this, >> >> >> especially when Marsha claims to be interested in Buddhist philopophy >> >> >> and how it relates to the MOQ. Why on earth would I even bother >> >> >> getting drawn into another discussion with her when I already know >> >> >> what the end result will be? >> >> >> >> >> >> I've tried to engage both her and John in an intelligent discussion >> >> >> but failed. Maybe it's me. Unlike others here, I am not going to >> >> >> trumpet how smart I am. Yet I have really tried, only to be met with >> >> >> silliness, insults, and the same old stale cup of tea that has been >> >> >> swishing around here for years. Now we've got an umemployed >> >> >> "scientist" clogging up the airwaves with more foolishness. Oh boy. >> >> >> Isn't it fun. Please find work soon. >> >> >> >> >> >> So, no, it is not just you, David. Just so you know, >> >> >> >> >> >> Dan >> >> >> > >> > [Mark] >> > Hi Dan, >> > >> > Is that all you've got? Hmmm...Intellectual indeed. Is that what you >> call >> > answers? >> > >> > Well, then, my only response is: Go back to your master, you effing >> > rottweiler! You want it your way, there's a nice big bowl of dog food >> > waiting for you under the table, snarf it up, it will make you happy. >> Stop >> > your pathetic snarling on these airwaves! Don't come back until you have >> > something productive to bark about! Go now, shoo,shoo. That's a good >> boy. >> >> Hi Mark >> >> I have re-read my post to you... it is not insulting in the least, >> other than to point out your questions are meaningless once a person >> has come to terms with the MOQ. I have no wish that you'd leave. I >> welcome new members. I merely suggest you would do well to learn a bit >> before jumping into discusssions that have been going on for years. >> >> Also, there are forum guidelines, one of which is a limit to 4 posts a >> day per member. Horse has been very generous in overlooking that rule, >> especially when someone has something of substance to add to the >> discussion. >> >> You don't. >> >> If that's insulting to you, then so be it. That is what I mean when I >> say you are clogging things up. There are others here who'd be more >> than happy to swap nonsense with you... Platt, Ham, Marsha, Bodvar, >> etc. But if you are sincere in learning a little something about the >> MOQ, I'd suggest going into the archives and reading posts from people >> like dmb, Horse, Andre, Paul Turner, Anthony McWatt, Keith Gillette, >> Scott Roberts, and a dozen others I could mention. The quality of >> their writings jumps out. >> >> Dan >> >> PS I have recently been delving into the Guidebook to ZMM... very >> insightful. You might want to add that to your reading list. >> 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
