Sent from my iPad
On Feb 21, 2012, at 11:33 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, Marsha. In this way one cannot present truths in the dialectic
> fashion. But be careful how you use the phrase that "everything is an
> analogy", it can make what you post meaningless. The dialectical
> position has its purposes, as you are fully aware, to demolish such a
> things would make this forum meaningless. I imagine you already know
> that, and you will temper your opinions accordingly. One can only
> hope :-). I will try to correct you when you stray from what you are
> presenting, and help you with your construction of your metaphysics.
> Unless you want to arrive at nonsense, that is. No reply please. I
> do not want to participate in some fantasy out of this.
> Regards,
> Mark
>
> On 2/21/12, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> "Fantastic, Phædrus thinks, that he should have remembered that. It just
>> demolishes the whole dialectical position. That may just be the whole show
>> right there. Of course it's an analogy. Everything is an analogy. But the
>> dialectician don't know that."
>> (ZAMM, Ch. 30)
>>
>> But you know this.
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 2:04 AM, 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
>>
> 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
