Hi Dan, On Jul 10, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
> Hello everyone > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 1:30 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Greetings Good Dan Glover, >> >> >> >> On Jul 10, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Dan Glover wrote: >> >>> Hello everyone >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "To the extent that one's behavior is >>>> controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the >>>> extent >>>> that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is >>>> free." >>>> (LILA, Chapter 12) >>>> >>>> >>>> Here's a way to look at it: 'To the extent that one's behavior is >>>> controlled by the freewill (a static pattern of value) it is without >>>> choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is >>>> undefinable, one's behavior is free.' >>> >>> Dan: >>> >>> I am not sure what you're getting at. Is this a typo, perhaps? Yes, >>> free will is a static pattern of value. But so is everything. Every >>> "thing" that is, except Dynamic Quality. Static patterns of quality >>> determine our lives. Dynamic Quality makes our lives better. >>> >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> But there is also this: >>>> >>>> "In a subject-object classification of the world, Quality is in the same >>>> situation as that platypus. Because they can't classify it the experts >>>> have claimed there is something wrong with it. And Quality isn't the only >>>> such platypus. Subject-object metaphysics is characterized by herds of >>>> huge, dominating, monster platypi. The problems of free will versus >>>> determinism, of the relation of mind to matter, of the discontinuity of >>>> matter at the sub-atomic level, of the apparent purposelessness of the >>>> universe and the life within it are all monster platypi created by the >>>> subject-object metaphysics..." >>>> (LILA, Chapter 8) >>> >>> Dan: >>> >>> Yes, there is that. But what exactly are you getting at? I don't see >>> any commentary. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Dan >> >> Marsha: >> A little after the Chapter 8 quote, "These creatures that seem like such a >> permanent part of the philosophical landscape magically disappear when a >> good Metaphysics of Quality is applied." >> >> >> If this issues is deemed a huge, dominating, monstrous, som, platypus that >> the MoQ removes, on what basis would you like to continue the discussion? >> Is there a clear new question being formulated for discussion? > > Dan: > > I don't know as there is a clear new question, but rather our dialogue > here seems to revolve around the taking apart of one metaphysics of > quality and putting together a better one. What RMP seems to be saying > (metaphorically) is that ideas like free will vs determinism, mind vs > matter, the meaning of life vs the meaningless of life all are > questions arising from an erroneous assumption that subjects and > objects are the primary division of the world. Yes. > It isn't necessary to rid ourselves of those notions, however. No? Might there be confusion discussing the MoQ from a subject-object orientation? What strategy have you used to kick the subject-object habit? Do you think one can just intellectualize the change from S-O to Quality? > Rather, > by incorporating those notions into a value-centered metaphysics we > are better able to understand the myths and motives behind those > ideas. That would seem to be a Quality discussion... one that might > lead to further inquiries and a better way of viewing the world. > > Thank you, > > Dan Thank you Dan, Marsha ___ 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
