Hi Mark I apologize. I was brusque with you. However, whatever dogma you find in my writings might be more understandable to a person better-versed with Robert Pirsig's work.
I never read about zen anymore as I feel it interferes with my practice. I do enjoy looking at the pictures though. These days I prefer reading historical fiction. David Mitchell is one of my favorite authors. He can really weave a tale and his way with words is unrivaled. Thank you, Dan On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:39 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > 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
