Hi Alex, Your skepticism is understandable. I am certainly not one to provide orientation. It has been suggested to me that I go back and read previous posts. If I were you, I would visit the parent site MOQ.org to start. There are more detailed sites that expand on MOQ, but I haven't bookmarked them.
The purpose of direction, I believe, is to introduce morality. However, I could be wrong on this so please don't quote me. I'm sure some of the senior members will jump in. Guys? Mark On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Alexander Jarnroth < [email protected]> wrote: > I wonder if that's not just a kind of tautology. You could call term any > change in the dynamic direction "improvement" but then you can't really > call > the direction of the change a direction pointing at improvement. > But perhaps you meant something else? > I was thinking about orientation today. Perhaps could MoQ help you > orientate? That would rather be like creating a set of references. But I > think such a set would be termed static, rather than dynamic. So compared > to > orientation dynamic quality would be drift. But perhaps you ought to be > ready to take the chance when it shows up even though you're drifting. > > I don't know. I just can't see what use there would be in determining some > kind of direction. > > /A > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 118 > Sent: den 26 oktober 2010 19:22 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value > > Hi Alex, > > Yes, you will find a lot of SEPs in this forum. One of the contributors, > John, is fond of Adams as am I. > > I believe, and I am ready to be corrected, that the MOQ does provide > direction. If we use the vector analogy, the components of such a vector > would include "betterness". This gives direction but not destination. In > terms of seeking, I prefer the term creating. If nothing else, we has > humans are highly creative. It is this drive which keeps the development > going. So, I would paraphrase you saying (with apologies) as follows: > "He who [creates will create everything], but he who doesn't [create] could > possibly [create] anything." > > Cheers, > Mark > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Alexander Jarnroth < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello > > > > No harm in using that name. > > > > *** > > > > To me, it seems, that you would like to define DQ as change and then > > saying that the direction in which the change, as a kind of vector, > > points, should be termed essence. This "attractor", termed "source", > > should then be absolute, in the sense of independent on anything. > > I, myself, presume such an independent existence of "that which is", > > but I think that which is, in an absolute sense, is mentally > > unreachable. But of course, well working concepts should somehow > correspond to this. > > However, I wouldn't term DQ as change towards something, rather change > > from. > > Change from old concepts to new concepts (being this concepts > > descriptive, evaluative or both). And I don't mean that a change away > > from something leaves that thing obsolete. > > If all possible useful concepts form an infinite set, as I think it > > does, then it just doesn't matter how much you know, there would still > > be an infinity left. And if any arrow should point in an > > infinite-dimensional space (as I somehow believe both the space of > > concepts and the space of "what is" to be) you couldn't possible have > > an arrow pointing in any specific direction in every dimension. I > > think you could imagine an infinite-dimensional arrow somehow to be > > pointing "everywhere", if you should have one such arrow there. But > > then, this would be equivalent to having "change away from" as a value > > in itself, because the direction of such a change could be chosen > > arbitrarily and would the thus have some kind of correspondence with > > this infinite dimensional arrow. The only change that would be > > immoral, is in the direction towards what wouldn't work, but anyone > > heading in that direction would just punish himself by necessity. > > Among the Nag Hammadi-texts there is one which I like, called > > Allogenes the Stranger. > > > > There are a few lines which I like: > > > > "Even if he is endowed with blessedness and perfection and silence, He > > is not the blessed one, nor is he perfection or stillness. > > But he is something existing THAT ONE CANNOT KNOW AND IS AT REST. > > > > Rather they are completely unknowable aspects of him, While he is much > > superior in beauty than all good things. > > And in this way he is unknowable in every respect, And it is through > > them all that he is in them all. > > > > Not only is he unknowable knowledge that is proper to him, HE IS ALSO > > UNITED WITH THE IGNORANCE THAT SEES HIM > > > > Whether one sees in what way he is unknowable, or sees him as he is in > > every respect, or would say that he is something like knowledge, he > > has acted impiously against him, being liable to judgment because he > > did not know God. > > He will not be judged by that One, who is neither concerned for > > anything nor has any desire, BUT HE IS JUDGED BY HIMSELF BECAUSE HE > > HAS NOT FOUND THE TRULY EXISTING ORIGIN. He was blind apart from the > > quiescent source of revelation... > > > > ...Concerning all these matters, you have heard certainly. Do not seek > > anything more, but go. ... It is not appropriate to dissipate further > > through repeated seeking..." > > > > But of course you could use any definition that is useful, but I think > > every definition is a simplification. It always misses something. It > > can't include all and still be useful. So there can't be any final > > answer. Everything that is useful, you can use, but I don't think > > there is anything more. DQ to me, defined simply, would be "trying to > > find out what you don't know, you don't know". You can't have a > > goal-directed search then, because then you know what it is you don't > > know, or you're seeking for something which probably doesn't is (or > > exists). > > I have a little saying, in opposition to Jesus, which goes: "He who > > seeks won't find anything, but he who doesn't seek could possibly find > anything". > > Concerning vision if you let an objects oscillate at about 60hz and > > with the right amplitude, the object would vanish from the vision from > > any humane being beholding it for some time. But what a person would > > see, where the object once were, would not be a void, or anything like > > that, but just the surroundings filling in. > > In the first book Pirsig used a metaphor which I liked. "To see in the > > corner of the eye". The cells at the end of the retina only fire when > > noting a change in the measured light. To you actually just see such > > sudden changes in the corner of your eye. In the center of vision you > > see a lot of details instad, but you must continually change the focus > > to really see patterns or changes. But if you think you know what > > you're looking for, you would always move the center of your vision > > there, and just miss these little changes which could possibly be > > noted in the corner. > > I think there was something similar in the Hitchhiker's guide to the > > galaxy. > > It was called "somebody else's problem". It could only be seen if just > > happened to note it in the corner of your eye. It's a good metaphor > > anyway you put it. > > > > /A > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ham Priday > > Sent: den 26 oktober 2010 06:55 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value > > > > Hi Alex -- > > > > > > > So guess that what you're really interested in is what in MoQ was > > > termed dynamic quality. I think you really shouldn't define that, > > > because by defining it, you propose to know what it is, and then it > > > wouldn't be dynamic or transcendental or whatever you may wish to > > > call it. I think that the ability to continuously reform yourself > > > is the only "pattern" of dynamic to be found. You just have to be > > > open minded. > > > > Yes, I am really interested in the primary source of reality, because > > if we don't take it into account we will never have a complete > > ontological thesis. > > > > However, I don't understand the premise you 've presented as an > > argument against definition. There is no logical reason that a > > concept like DQ or Essence cannot be defined. It may be > > indescribable, unknowable, or beyond empirical reach, but then so are > God, > Perfection, and absolute Goodness. > > Yet we have defined them, because we understand what such attributes > > ultimately must be. You say that "by defining it, it wouldn't be > > dynamic or transcendent." Why should a definition limit or affect the > > nature of that which transcends word meanings? > > > > Back in the 15th century, a mathematician and astronomer named > > Nicholas of Cusa theorized that God is the uncreated "Not-other". The > > significance of this theory is profound. It has afforded philosophers > > a valuable metaphysical tool - a definitive label for the ineffable > > Source whose attributive nature is otherwise indefinable. I have used > > Cusa's First Principle as the metaphysical foundation of Essentialism. > > > > Does Dynamic Quality accurately name the Source whose "dynamics" are > > unknowable and whose "quality" is realizable only to man? I think not. > > The term "dynamic" suggests a flow or movement like evolution, which > > applies to the physical world but not to a transcendent source. I > > happen to believe this uncreated source does not evolve or change, but > > is immutable. That's why I have named this metaphysically necessary > > source Absolute Essence. > > It's a non-descriptive appellation, yet one that is relevant and > > logically workable for an ontological scheme. > > > > Of course, I realize that it may not be appropriate in this forum to > > depart "too much" from the author's vernacular. At the same time, > > constantly throwing words like "dynamic", "static", and "patterns" > > around with impunity, without really knowing what they infer, tends to > > conflate ideas into meaningless "word games" that have little bearing > > on philosophical concepts. I really hope Mark can successfully apply > > his "logical constants" > > > > to metaphysical axioms so that we can avoid the misconceptions that > > careless word usage generates. > > > > Thanks for your inputs, Alex (may I address you by that name?). I am > > only acquainted with Huxley's 'Brave New World," but will investigate > > "Island", which, as you say, may present his idea of a more positive > world. > > > > 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/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 > > 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
