Hi Marsha, I really do not know what kind of steroids you are on, or what kind of history you have had which cause you to deliver that kind of response, which is low Quality indeed, and completely out of bounds in MoQ.
You can read what I present but you do not have to accept any of it. You are acting like I want you to be me, but you couldn't be farther from the truth. I want you to be you. So if you take offense to what I write, then I really do not see why you would ever read my posts or anybody elses for that matter. They are just going to make you unhappy and resentful. Please, we are beyond that, don't bring your emotions into the forum, they are not conducive the the advancement of MoQ, and really quite petty. Whay I present is my opinion and my opinion only. It is not right, not wrong, unless you claim that the color of a flower can be wrong. I you want to stick you head up your ass, be my guest, but please do not wish that on others, if based on your experience of such a thing makes it something filthy. Remember Arete. Do you believe in Arete? If so, just try to be the best you can be. Bringing other people down so that you look better is not the way to do it. I was trying to stop you from getting into a circular paradox of analogies, for that is not what Pirsig meant. It is not "analogies all the way down" like turtles. That is a nihilistic way of looking at things. In the same way, it is not patterns all the way down. What a nonsensical world we would live in if that were the case. Just my humble opinion. If you want to take up a lance and fight against windmills, be my guest, just choose somebody else's windmill. If you address a post to me I will answer, for now. But often I do not see the reason for doing so. Address your posts to some other punching bag. Cheers, Mark On 2/21/12, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > 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
