Mark, Joe, Marsha, Andre, Dan, and All --

On Mon, March 5, 2012 at 6:49 PM, "118" <[email protected]> wrote:

Through this forum we can create opinions as "far out" as they may seem.
Discussion can help us reformulate. It is always part of creation. We will
never know enough to stop our opinions from progressing, so their is
never "enough".  Give it a shot.  There are never any stupid opinions.
No matter what other members may proclaim.  They just have an agenda.
Such agenda is static, and not becoming of MoQ's striving towards
"betterness", IMO.

Having refrained from participating in this forum for several weeks because my ideas did not fit the official MoQ doctrine, I've been amused (and occasionally astonished) by some of the opinions recently posted here. Mark's "open door" solicitation has persuaded me to "give it another shot."

Although I'm not convinced that "agendas are static" or that the MoQ is a "striving towards 'betterness'", it is clear to me that all philosophical formulations are at base "opinions". Otherwise they would not be philosophical formulations but scientific theories based on logical formulation of empirical data.

I find it interesting that our beloved Marsha, who has consistently denied her selfness, now denies her ability to form opinions, as well. After reviewing Mark's analysis of her March 4 dissertation on feelings and their ownership, Marsha responded:

I don't know enough to form an opinion. It is extremely interesting, though,
and I hope to learn more.

One can only wonder what all those quotes posted from the Vedanta and Buddhist scholars are intended to express if not her opinion. Marsha has certainly formulated her own opinion of what a SOM pattern is, since "ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent, static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value" has become the mantra that identifies her.

And friend Joseph is so fixated on evolutionary theory that he cannot explain human Will or Intellect as anything but a "product of passions and feelings", ...

[Joe, on 3/4]:
For myself I view feelings as emotions and imho indefinable emotions
have metaphysical reality DQ in MOQ. "Categories" is a product of
evolution and emotions as being indefinable function without intellectual logic.
It is only the intellect which does this, and such intellect stems from
the passions.
Passions/Feelings are more closely allied than Passions/Intellect in
evolutionary description.  Decision can follow passionate reality as well
as intellectual reality.

I think we've over-complicated the functional and experiential categories of existence in an effort to conform to the Quality hierarchy. The Pirsigian worldview is almost incomprehensible as a consequence of such analysis.

For example, if 'free will' is only "an intellectual static pattern of value," as Marsha asserted, then freedom is an exclusive property of Quality and "human freedom" is a meaningless concept. And if Value, Love, or Morality cannot be equated with feelings, as Dan maintains, then how in the world do we realize or define them? Surely both Free Will and Value are immanent sensibilities that drive human behavior and lead to the development of moral concepts which (we can only hope) will improve our society.

Frankly, I can't conceive of Value (Quality) "bettering itself" or Free Will having anything to do with the evolution of the universe. These are distinctly human precepts which arise from man's relation to his essential Source. But that's because I view the universe as a dynamic anthropocentric system as opposed to static patterns created by an esthetic "moral" reality.

But Mark says "there are never any stupid opinions." So, I'm hoping he's right and that these comments will not be taken as an offense to either RMP or the opinion contributors I have cited. I can assure you, at least, that my "far out" opinions are not part of any "agenda" to disparage the MoQ.

And thanks to all for your indulgence.

Essentially speaking,
Ham

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

Reply via email to