Hi Mark, I point to no passage as True, only true relative to an individual's static pattern history and the dynamics of the particular event.
Marsha On Oct 24, 2011, at 2:08 AM, 118 wrote: > Hi Marsha, > The experience that Pisig's went through, and the meaning it gave his life as > presented in ZMM is the foundation for MoQ. One must first understand that > or one can get lost in the details of MoQ, in my opinion. If I get lost, I > return to ZMM to remember what it is all about. The way Pisig subsequently > presents MoQ can be done in a thousand ways. I think that to point to a > passage as True misses the whole point. > > Mark > > On Oct 23, 2011, at 1:19 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Dmb, >> >> I might remind you that the quote you provided from Chapter 29 of ZAMM was >> written before long before LILA and the MoQ. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> On Oct 23, 2011, at 3:31 PM, david buchanan wrote: >> >>> >>> Marhsa said: We have been through this before in the 'Humanism' thread >>> November 2010. I do not mean an "anything goes" absolute, ethical >>> relativism. Conventional (static) truth is relative; relative to an >>> individual's static pattern history and the dynamics of the particular >>> event. Truths may be judged within the MoQ based on their placement >>> within the evolutionary, four-level, hierarchical structure. >>> >>> >>> dmb says: >>> Yea, I know. You still don't see any reason to give up relativism. No >>> worries. I was talking to Mark. Maybe he'll see the reason. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 23, 2011, at 2:31 PM, david buchanan wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha said to Mark: >>>>> >>>>> I am quite comfortable with conventional (static) truth being relative. >>>>> It is a word comfortably used within Buddhism and I see no reason to >>>>> reject. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pirsig gives us lots of reasons to believe that truth is more than merely >>>>> relative, Quality is track that guides the formation of both facts and >>>>> moral truths: >>>>> >>>>> What guarantees the objectivity of the world in which we live is that >>>>> this world is common to us with other thinking beings. Through the >>>>> communications that we have with other men we receive from them >>>>> ready-made harmonious reasonings. ..And as these reasonings appear to fit >>>>> the world of our sensations, we think we may infer that these reasonable >>>>> beings have seen the same thing as we; thus it is that we know we haven't >>>>> been dreaming. It is this harmony, this quality if you will, that is the >>>>> sole basis for the only reality we can ever know. >>>>> >>>>> Poincaré's contemporaries .. presumed that "preselected facts" meant that >>>>> truth is "whatever you like" and called his ideas conventionalism. >>>>> ..What he neglected to say was that the selection of facts before you >>>>> "observe" them is "whatever you like" only in a dualistic, subject-object >>>>> metaphysical system! When Quality enters the picture as a third >>>>> metaphysical entity, the preselection of facts is no longer arbitrary. >>>>> The preselection of facts is not based on subjective, capricious >>>>> "whatever you like" but on Quality, which is reality itself. ..To leave >>>>> the impression in the scientific world that the source of all scientific >>>>> reality is merely a subjective, capricious harmony is to solve problems >>>>> of epistemology while leaving an unfinished edge at the border of >>>>> metaphysics that makes the epistemology unacceptable. ..But we know from >>>>> Phædrus' metaphysics that the harmony Poincaré talked about is not >>>>> subjective. It is the source of subjects and objects and exists in an >>>>> anterior relationship to them. It is not capricious, it is the force that >>>>> opposes capriciousness; the ordering principle of all scientific and >>>>> mathematical thought which destroys capriciousness, and without which no >>>>> scientific thought can proceed. >>>>> >>>>> From chapter 29 of ZAMM: >>>>> Man is not the source of all things, as the subjective idealists would >>>>> say. Nor is he the passive observer of all things, as the objective >>>>> idealists and materialists would say. The Quality which creates the world >>>>> emerges as a relationship between man and his experience. He is a >>>>> participant in the creation of all things. The measure of all things... >>>>> >>>>> How are you going to teach virtue if you teach the relativity of all >>>>> ethical ideas? Virtue, if it implies anything at all, implies an ethical >>>>> absolute. A person whose idea of what is proper varies from day to day >>>>> can be admired for his broadmindedness, but not for his virtue. >>>>> >>>>> Lightning hits!Quality! Virtue! Dharma! That is what the Sophists were >>>>> teaching! Not ethical relativism. Not pristine "virtue." But areté. >>>>> Excellence. Dharma! Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. Before >>>>> form. Before mind and matter. Before dialectic itself. Quality had been >>>>> absolute. Those first teachers of the Western world were teaching >>>>> Quality, and the medium they had chosen was that of rhetoric. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ...we advanced organisms respond to our environment with an invention of >>>>> many marvelous analogues. We invent earth and heavens, trees, stones and >>>>> oceans, gods, music, arts, language, philosophy, engineering, >>>>> civilization and science. We call these analogues reality. And they are >>>>> reality. We mesmerize our children in the name of truth into knowing that >>>>> they are reality. We throw anyone who does not accept these analogues >>>>> into an insane asylum. But that which causes us to invent the analogues >>>>> is Quality. Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts >>>>> upon us to create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit >>>>> of it. >>>>> >>>>> Men invent responses to Quality, and among these responses is an >>>>> understanding of what they themselves are. You know something and then >>>>> the Quality stimulus hits and then you try to define the Quality >>>>> stimulus, but to define it all you've got to work with is what you know. >>>>> So your definition is made up of what you know. It's an analogue to what >>>>> you already know. It has to be. It can't be anything else. And the mythos >>>>> grows this way. By analogies to what is known before. The mythos is a >>>>> building of analogues upon analogues upon analogues. These fill the >>>>> collective consciousness of all communicating mankind. Every last bit of >>>>> it. The Quality is the track that directs the train. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 > 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
