Hi Marsha, Yes, I can tell that you did not understand my questions since your answer did not address them. I will stop asking you questions. Regards, Mark
On 2/20/12, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > Sorry, but from my point-of-view your collection of questions do not seem > not to make sense. Conventionally real would equate to stating something is > a static pattern, not ultimately real. Free will and determinism are > intellectual static patterns of value, but "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." (RMP, LILA: Chapter 12). > > > Marsha > > > > On Feb 20, 2012, at 4:48 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> That is an interesting opinion. It does indeed lie within your MoQ as >> I have become accustomed to from your posts. Although I do not quite >> see how you tie morality into it. That word seems out of place in >> your paragraph below. >> >> The difference is more easily presented in terms of free-will. The >> use of patterns seems to deny such a thing, if I read your post >> correctly. Is free will a pattern, or is it DQ? Or perhaps it is a >> third thing altogether. The quote you present of Pirsig's is rather >> strange. It creates three things. DQ, sq, and the individual. Could >> you perhaps explain why you present this triad? What is it about the >> individual that separates him/her from DQ. I am currently pondering >> this as well. >> >> I am not sure what you mean by conventionally. Is a squirrel not real >> outside of convention? When a fox catches a squirrel is that within >> the conventional reality? What is it that forms this convention? It >> would seem that you are making a distinction in realities here, but I >> am not quite sure what that is. Could you provide me a little more >> depth to this? Is Quality conventional or unconventional when we are >> pointing towards it. What would make it unconventional or >> conventional in your view? >> >> Finally, in terms of your patterns. What is the source for these >> patterns? Do they exist outside of the need for patterns? If the >> source is our need for them, why do we need them? If they have no >> inherent existence, what does have inherent existence? If nothing has >> inherent existence, then patterns have as much inherent existence as >> anything else. In fact, the term inherent existence can be dropped >> completely, or a pattern can be said to have inherent existence >> "relative" to something else. If we use this defenition for inherent >> existence, we can say that patterns do have inherent existence. >> Otherwise you seem to leave yourself in a vacuum of sorts, and life is >> anything but a vacuum. >> >> Why would we gravitate and accept something that doesn't exist? How >> can we differentiate between "I" and "You", for it seems that this is >> what we do. The notion that I would be posting a response to you >> would not make sense in you metaphysics, and this conversation would >> have already been determined before we got involved due to previous >> patterns. With your pattern analogy, how do you get away from >> determinism? >> >> Thanks, >> Mark >> >> On 2/20/12, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Greetings Mark, >>> >>> I think it might be time to float this quote once again: >>> >>> "The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of >>> quality >>> is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are >>> different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern >>> of >>> life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence >>> his >>> final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual >>> value >>> judgments but not complete uniformity." >>> (RMP, SODV) >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Because I see it differently; for me, static patterns of value are >>> processes, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and >>> conceptualized, that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a >>> stable, predictable pattern. Within the MoQ, these patterns are morally >>> categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure: >>> inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. Static quality exists in >>> stable patterns relative to other patterns: patterns depend upon ( exist >>> relative to) innumerable causes and conditions (patterns), depend upon >>> (exist relative to) parts and the collection of parts (patterns), depend >>> upon (exist relative to) conceptual designation (patterns). Patterns have >>> no >>> independent, inherent existence. Further, these patterns pragmatically >>> exist relative to an individual's static pattern of life history. >>> >>> Yet I can still agree that static quality is in some sense real as rain. >>> The rain, tree, the squirrel and even squirrel nuts are conventionally >>> real. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 > 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
