Mark, As one much wiser than me has already said to you: Stick your advice "where the sun don't shine."
Marsha 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
