On Apr 26, 2011, at 8:07 PM, X Acto wrote: > marsha: > I think the same approach can be taken towards freedom. First, there's the > ineffable, Ultimate freedom of following DQ. I believe this is what Dan is > pointing to when he presents RMP's quote "To the extent that one's behavior > is > controlled by static patterns of quality is without choice. But to the > extent > that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is > free." Second, there is the static, ego-based freedom that thinks itself > chooses between this or that. - Personally, I think that an event has > multiple > interconnected causes and conditions which in turn have multiple > interconnected > causes and conditions, &etc., &etc., &etc. It may be correct to think that > an > individual participates within the 'multiple causes and conditions', but to > say > WE CHOOSE is totally self-centered; it's illusion and not very useful. > > > > Ron: > All static quality is an illusion, all dynamic quality is chaos. Is chaos > freedom?
Marsha: I do not think of DQ as chaos, if for no other reason than 'chaos' is an analogy with a negative connotation; it's a static pattern of value. I think of DQ as 'nonduality.' It's a different static pattern, but one with a neutral connotation. It holds no knowledge, division or definition within it. > If all static patterns migrate toward chaos, what are we saying? > > If all static patterns are a migration toward freedom, what are we saying? > > which consequences are better and more consistant? > > to say that they migrate or evolve toward betterness has more meaning, more > explanitory > power > than they evolve toward chaos. > > don't you think? > > thnx Marsha > > > > > On Apr 26, 2011, at 3:38 AM, MarshaV wrote: > >> >> Greetings Ham, >> >> The 'unknowable, undefinable undividable Goodness' that I spoke of in >> outside >> of the language's ability to explain it, because language seeks to divide, >> describe and define. With language the subject and object are created. I >> suggest you might say there seem to be two types of goodness/betterness. >> There >> is the static, measurable, judgmental type which is associated with a >> subject >> (ego/individual), and there is an ineffable >> Goodness(interconnectedness/nonduality). >> >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> On Apr 26, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Ham Priday wrote: >> >>> Marsha, Ron, Dan, and All -- >>> >>> >>> "So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, >>> is an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of > reality >>> create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so >>> because it is 'better' and that this definition of 'betterness'- this >> beginning >>> response to Dynamic Quality- is an elementary unit of ethics upon which >>> all right and wrong can be based." [LILA, p 161] >>> >>> [Marsha to Ron]: >>>> I see the world being composed of conventional meaning, >>>> AND unknowable, undefinable & undividable Goodness. >>> >>> [Ron to Marsha]: >>>> Here's the difference Marsha, >>>> I see the world as being composed of nothing but meaning >>>> while you see it as having no meaning at all. >>>> and that is a huge difference in our world outlooks >>>> so we are going to disagree about stuff like that. >>> >>> [Ron to Dan]: >>>> Dynamic Quality is best understood as "betterness" >>> >>> [Dan]: >>>> Ron? You are saying that DQ is "an elementary unit of ethics >>>> upon which all right and wrong can be based"? >>>> I got from the quote that betterness is not DQ but an initial >>>> response to DQ. Isn't that different? >>> >>> It is obvious to anyone reviewing the recent posts (re: the story of "me" >>> and >>> Free Will) that Goodness, Quality, and Betterness have led to confusion and >>> rancor in interpreting the MoQ. The author himself was contradictory when >>> he >>> introduced Quality in ZMM. "You know what it is, yet you don't know what >>> it >>> is," he said. >>> >>> His logic went downhill from there: >>> >>> "Some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But >>> when >>> you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it >>> all >>> goes poof! There's nothing to talk about. But if you can't say what >>> Quality is, >>> how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even exists? If no >>> one >>> knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it really does exist. >>> What >>> else are the grades based on? Why else would people pay fortunes for some >>> things and throw others in the trash pile?" >>> >>> But what is missing in this analysis, as I think Dan recognizes, is the >>> observing subject without which there would be no Goodness to experience, >>> no >>> Quality to grade, and no Betterness to aspire to. For none of these >>> aesthetic >>> attributes exists outside the realm of conscious sensibility. All goodness >>> is >>> subjective, that is, relative to the cognizant self who measures it. To >>> say >>> that the universe is good and going on better means that things are going >>> well >>> for YOU, not that the universe is "made of" Quality. >>> >>> Of course, reducing the individual to "interrelated quality patterns", as >>> Pirsig does, makes it difficult to understand how we have the capability to >>> realize goodness in our relational world. Nor does it help matters to >>> insist >>> that we are "composed of value", which isn't true either. We are sensible >>> of, >>> drawn to, the value of otherness. >>> But the beauty of a melody cannot be realized by a tone-deaf person, nor >>> can >>> the quality of a painting be appreciated by a blind man. >>> >>> Unfortunately, by doing away with subjects and objects, Pirsig had no >>> choice >>> but to posit Quality as an undefined entity unto itself. This not only >>> runs >>> counter to epistemology, it renders the MoQ incomprehensible to anyone with >>> a >>> logical mind. >>> >>> With sincere apologies to all Pirsig loyalists, >>> --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
