On Jul 10, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:20 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>> Marsha:
>> Yes.
>>
>> Dan:
>>> It isn't necessary to rid ourselves of those notions, however.
>> Marsha:
>> No? Might there be confusion discussing the MoQ from a subject-object
>> orientation?
>
> Dan:
> Rather the opposite, I should think.
>
> Marsha:
> What strategy have you used to kick the subject-object habit?
>
> Dan:
> I've been re-watching the Joseph Campbell documentaries on mythology.
> It is quite wonderful the way he explains our myths as the basis of
> our civilization rather than old musty stories that have no
> present-day meaning. Subjects and objects are part of the mythology of
> our culture. Those terms are the bedrock on which our agreements with
> the world are based. Instead of trying to "kick the subject-object
> habit" we need to understand the mythology behind it.
>
> Marsha:
> Do you think one can just intellectualize the change from S-O to Quality?
>
> Dan:
>
> No need. We all know what Quality is even if we cannot explain what it
> is we know.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dan
Marsha:
Well if this is what you think, it's your reality.
Have a good evening,
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
