Hi Ron, On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:14 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> 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. > "Before the split" is an interesting proposition. One could say that it IS the split which makes Quality. In MoQ terms, the split brings about the concept of Quality. I am not sure how one can logically say that there is something before this "split". I do understand what you are trying to convey through this projection, but such a projection relies on DQ and SQ to be made. You create a monism from a pluralism, not the other way around. Within MoQ, Quality cannot be considered as a monism for this very reason. It comes from the two. As I have said previously, I do not believe the question of monism or pluralism is appropriate for MoQ since it detracts from the message. That is, of course, my pragmatic opinion. > > 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. > By your logic (concerning Quality), we could term the two truths to be a monism of The Truth. However, this is not how dialectic materialism works. It is this dialectic approach that MoQ uses, through the power of rhetoric. This truth, as you say, could be "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..". However, this also has many paradoxes associated with it. If instead of broad generalisms about Quality, we instead reveal specifics, we are left, like Wittgenstein, providing examples of Quality. If we do this, MoQ becomes a series of examples, rather than a more general description of Quality. Of course we can approach MoQ in both ways. > > 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 > Yes, the pragmatic approach, which means the practical approach. You are of course referring to what James considered practical. That is, where one's belief leads one. Beliefs, as in thoughts, come first and then we see what happens. Of course each word brings in images depending on one's knowledge and experience. As such basing these words within the stream of experience leads to a classical direction of a romantic realization. This indeed is one of the problems with Western philosophy. What is practical for a philosopher is nonsense for someone else. The manner in which a philosopher may change his existing reality may be impractical to many. I believe that James relies too much on words, which is not uncommon to the philosopher who makes a living of of static value. > > 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. > I agree with you here Ron that creating a "one" is not very practical. It does not lead anywhere. In the same vein I would caution against making the concept of experience a "one". As a scientist, I operate through a pragmatic approach at work using empiricism. However one must not forget the intuitive component of such creation of reality. A theory does not only come from empirical evidence, but comes from imagination. Often this imagination is far from practical and requires a belief which defies practicality. Then as a scientist I follow James' advice to find out what happens with this belief. In the same sense, I have a belief that Quality has metaphysical descriptions which can be useful. The usefulness of these depends on the beliefs of the individual who is contemplating such Quality. As such any MoQ must be pragmatic from the individuals point of view and cannot be forced on one as a set of rules. The pragmatic approach is what each one of us uses when discussing Quality in this forum. Therefore it is important to consider each person's opinion with respect. If there is criticism, it should be done constructively with a solution in mind. Aggressive insinuating insulting may be pragmatic in a coercive sense but defies the principles of Arete, which we follow if we believe in Quality. If, on the other hand, one has no belief in Quality, then anything goes. However, then I would question why one is in this forum. Thank you for your post. Cheers, Mark > > . > > .. > 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
