On Jul 31, 2011, at 1:56 AM, Ham Priday wrote: > > Dear Marsha -- > > >> Greetings Ham, >> >> I am unsure how to understand the portion of the post addressed to me. >> For me, the MoQ is Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience). >> Static quality represents the conventional; patterns are "conventionally" >> real. >> No nihilism. > > You say Quality consists of "unpatterned experience" and "patterned > experience".
I'd better say Quality is experience(unpatterned/patterned). > What is "unpatterned" experience and how is it experienced? It's not a what. It is without having been conceptually constructed into a what. My best guess how to gain access, even for a little bit, is through mediation/mindfulness/awareness. > As I understand the MoQ, it is Dynamic Quality which is undefinable because > it cannot be experienced. It is my understanding that DQ is undefinable because it is prior to definition. > Surely you must realize that ALL experience is "patterned", since it is the > configuration or form of the object that makes it experienceable in the first > place. No I do not agree with this. I do not say that form exists. I do not say nothing exists. The best I can offer is that you cannot say. > So, unless you define abstract thoughts or emotional feelings as experience, > "pure, undifferentiated Quality" is an insensible euphemism. There is no > epistemological justification for non-realizable experience. Which is to say, > there is no such thing as Quality or Value or Morality or Virtue in itself, > independent of relational apprehension. Any epistemological justification would fall into the category of static quality. There is no such conceptually constructed THING independent of patterned relationship. I understand Quality to be the flow of ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value within a field of the unpatterned, indeterminate Dynamic Quality. > You are perpetrating a fallacy conjured up by Pirsig. Although I've > repeatedly stated that "unrealized value" is an oxymoron, it seems to have > fallen on deaf ears. Existential (i.e., objective) reality may be considered > qualitative or valuistic only to the extent that it is consciously > experienced in relation to what is not. Again, it is the sensible agent > which is the (valuistic) measure of all things. You may use whatever analogy you like, but it is still analogy. Ever wonder what is under all analogy? You might ask what good to have such an experience. To know what Reality is not. And it is not autonomous, independent me (self) standing against external, independent objects. > On 7/29 I said: It is the conscious Self which brings Value into being. > > You replied:: >> It is static value that brings into existence the Self. >> I am not rejecting this convention; it is what it is. > > You may call that assertion a "convention" -- sure, it's RMP's convention -- > but it makes no sense by the epistemology I've laid out above. If epistemology is the concern with understanding what it is to have knowledge and you have laid out a theory that is a conceptual construction, what do you have? Static quality, the conventional, is what has evolved as acceptable to "common sense". Its acceptance consistently leads to satisfaction, but it is not ultimately real or ultimately unreal. It is neither true nor false. It represents convenience. The self is such a convenience. > You also insist there is no quandary in your ontology. Yet when you take the > position that you neither accept nor reject Free Will, that your self is only > a convention, and that your reality is but "a collection of ever-changing, > interrelated, impermanent, static patterns of inorganic, biological, social > and intellectual value in a field of Dynamic Quality, there is NO locus of > control," it's obvious to me that you are a walking quandary in need of some > rational structuring to release you from your cloud of unreality. ;-) > There is more to life than this. Get REAL, girl! > > --Ham Thanks for the opportunity to try to express my understanding. 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
