Hi Dan, Many thanks for your interesting opinions on MoQ. I find much dogma in what you write with little or no explanation why you choose the rhetoric you do. However, I will put your opinions into my card files. I do wish you the best of luck with your interpretation, and that you find such endeavors fruitful and meaningful to your daily awareness. I would suggest that you read a little Zen and Taoism; these concepts within MoQ have been around for thousands of years, and written clearly by people much more intelligent than we in this forum; you may find that enjoyable.
Best regards, Mark On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > 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
