Hello everyone On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:40 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > Thank you for your insight. I understand that MoQ has meaning to you.
Dan: The MOQ should have meaning for all of us here. Otherwise we don't belong here. Mark: > What I am trying to discuss is the rhetoric used to convey meaning to > others. For many it would seem that the analogies used are obscure > and require some special training or education. This is true for all > metaphysics of course, but inroads must be presented which can be > taken to provide meaning to the uninitiated, and to provide > harmonization of premises. It is for this reason that I bring up the > inadequacy of Static Patterns of quality. More below. Dan: That's what Robert Pirsig wrote his books. No special training involved... only reading required. But there are many more resources as well, which require a lot of attention. And a person familiar with all those resources is at both an advantage and disadvantage when it comes to communicating with someone not familiar with them. > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Within the framework of the MOQ, everything is composed of static >> patterns of value. I was using my chair as a way to define a set of >> patterns otherwise known as my chair. > > [Mark] > Again, this postulation of composition indulges deviation. What is > termed "static patterns" obfuscates the nature of Quality. As > commonly used, a pattern is an interpretation of a group of sensory > inputs, such as the pattern of a rug, or a big set of waves coming in > to surf on. We cannot say that the ocean is composed of patterns of > waves, since that would be an incorrect construct. We can say that > the ocean expresses patterns of waves. There is a big difference > there, that between composition and expression. Dan: I can't say that I understand what you're getting at here. It is as though you do not understand the basic premise of the MOQ. From the beginning of chapter 12: "Phaedrus had once called metaphysics "the high country of the mind" -an analogy to the "high country" of mountain climbing. It takes a lot of effort to get there and more effort when you arrive, but unless you can make the journey you are confined to one valley of thought all your life. This high country passage through the Metaphysics of Quality allowed entry to another valley of thought in which the facts of life get a much richer interpretation. The valley spreads out into a huge fertile plain of understanding. "In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social patterns and intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all there are. If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic, Biological, Social and Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing," that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any encyclopedia, is absent. "But although the four systems are exhaustive they are not exclusive. They all operate at the same time and in ways that are almost independent of each other." [LILA] Dan comments: When you say "What is termed "static patterns" obfuscates the nature of Quality" you do not seem to be taking into account that static patterns ARE quality! How can static patterns of value obfuscate value? It doesn't make logical sense. >> > >> Dan: >> No. Within the framework of the MOQ the world is composed of Quality. >> Objects are convenient shorthand for inorganic and biological patterns >> of value. > > [Mark] > I am not sure what you mean by shorthand, or by convenience. The > world is not composed of Quality, Quality expresses the world. Dan: We are obvious on two different pages here. Mark: The > analogy of inorganic and biological can also be considered convenient > (if I get your intention with that statement), and such levels should > never be considered to be real, but analogies. There is no dogmatic > rhetoric which can thoroughly define these levels, and the imposition > of false boundaries reinforces static nature, which we do not want to > do with Quality. Dan: Again, I am confused by your usage of terms. I see no constructive way forward. >> >> >> Dan: >> No. There are no objects in the MOQ, only four levels of static >> quality of value plus undefined Dynamic Quality. > > [Mark] > The notion of objects and the notion of four levels are both > fundamentally the same form of concept. The so called static and > dynamic qualities are provided for purposes of meaning, and to > consider them as additive to form a whole may not be useful. Such > dualism can often present more problems than it solves. Dan: No, no, no. Objects refer to only 2 levels... inorganic and biological. Subjects refer to social and intellectual levels. I don't get what you mean by "so-called." >> >> >> Dan: >> When you put it that way, yes. Forget about objects! The substance of >> them is confusing you. Instead, think only of patterns of value. > > [Mark] > I do not believe I am confused, and being told how to think is not > conducive to productive discussion. When you provide statements of > composition, you are pointing to substance whether it be material or > otherwise. It would seem that such methods of explanation are > confusing. I have provided some reasons for being dismayed by this > analogy of patterns previously. Dan: If a person isn't thinking right, isn't it productive to tell them so? Mark. Read the goddamned books! Please! It is frightfully obvious that you haven't. They are not that difficult. >> >> Dan: >> There is a reason Quality is capitalized... the phrase "static >> patterns of Quality" is incorrectly used here. Quality when being used >> synonymously with Dynamic Quality is always capitalized but when used >> in conjunction with static quality it is not. > > [Mark] > OK, no problem. >> >> Within the framework of the MOQ, cause and effect are left behind. >> Instead, patterns value preconditions. Of course patterns do not make >> quality... they ARE quality! Our brains are preconditioned to interact >> with our environment via the cultural mores to which we are >> accustomed. > > [Mark] > I would again say that for rhetorical purposes it is easier to > understand MoQ if we speak of Quality expressing patterns. Since you > use the small "q", could you explain what you are pointing towards? Dan: I just did. Mark: I > will leave the notion of preconditioning for another discussion > sometime, but the term "preconditions" implies a temporal component. >> > My intention is to provide meaningful concepts to help promote MoQ. > To do this we must stay consistent within the vernacular, and as John > says, not create new meanings for words. A word points to a certain > thing and if we change the direction of such pointing it can confuse. > I appreciate what you bring to MoQ, and my suggestions are certainly > not rigorous but more an attempt to harmonize. Dan: First, we have to learn the vernacular. Your writings lead me to believe we are as far apart in our conception of quality as it is possible to be. I don't know how to move forward unless you take the time to learn. Thank you, Dan 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
