On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:14 AM, X Acto wrote:
> Marsha had said:
>
> Do you mean 'one' as a single entity? And what do you mean by Quality, are
> you referring to DQ as opposed to sq, or are you referring to Quality before
> the split into dynamic/static aspects, or what? That's why I like the phrase
> "nothing but value". Maybe a single process rather than a single entity.
> From a static point-of-view pluralistic seems more applicable. Or maybe Paul
> Turner's up and coming revised paper on the tetralemma and two-truths might
> shed some light on the topic.
>
> Ron replies:
> Quality before the split. Which then aims at the dynamic if indeed all is
> dynamic "actually"
> and I would agree that from the static point of view the plural is more
> applicable, that is why
> I asked that to take the monistic point of view staticly seems to be a
> departure from Pragmatism
> and the ways in which we typically assert Quality as indefinable and in flux.
>
> The two truths is that one use of the term "truth" is broad general and
> abstract in meaning while
> particular truths and truth values are many. The person of immediate
> experience takes the many
> and varied as the most meaningful and seems to be the direction we like to
> point in, we tend to
> avoid broad generalization especially about Quality.
>
> To conclude:
> "nothing but value" does not neccessarily mean that value is "one", as a
> monism would dictate
> it can be taken pluraly as "nothing but value" to mean more acurately
> "nothing but values".
>
> "But if you follow the pragmatic method , you cannot look on
> any such word as closing your quest. you must bring out of
> each word it's practicle cash value, set it at work within the stream
> of your experience. It appears as less of a solution, then, than as a
> program for more work and more particularly as an indication of the
> ways in which existing realities may be changed."
>
> -Willam James Pragmatism
>
> Marsha asks:
> I understand the MoQ to monistic because it posits that Reality, the World,
> is nothing but value. Do you deny this?
>
> Ron:
> I do not deny that the world is nothing but value, although I do deny that
> Value is "one"
> In any respect other than as a primary explanitory factor. Experience is
> varied and many.
> So to wrap things up, I do not think asserting MoQ as a monism as consistent
> with what
> it means to be a pragmatist.
>
Dictionary:
Monism: holding that there is only one basic substance or principle that is
the ground of reality.
Marsha:
Again I can only repeat: I understand the MoQ to be monistic because it posits
that Reality, the World, is nothing but value. I am not talking about Quality
being monistic, but the MoQ, and I am not talking about 'value' being 'one'.
This is not William James's MoQ, so I do not know what you are complaining
about when you state that the MoQ is inconsistent with William James's
Pragmatism, please explain.
"The Metaphysics of Quality is not intended to be within any philosophic
tradition, although obviously it was not written in a vacuum. My first
awareness that it resembled James' work came from a magazine review long after
“Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” was published. The Metaphysics of
Quality's central idea that the world is nothing but value is not part of any
philosophic tradition that I know of. I have proposed it because it seems to me
that when you look into it carefully it makes more sense than all the other
things the world is supposed to be composed of. One particular strength lies in
its applicability to quantum physics, where substance has been dismissed but
nothing except arcane mathematical formulae has really replaced it. "
(RMP, 'A Brief Summary of the MoQ', October 2005)
___
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
