Hello everyone On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:53 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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.
Dan: That's it? That's your reply? I had the audacity of hope that you might push back a bit if you didn't agree... that you might actually indulge me in a dialogue. Well, no matter. > > Have a good evening, Yeah, you too. 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
