Hi Marsha, Philosophers like reasons for things. Rather than look out at the world as it is simply presented to us, philosophers create and are interested in reasons for those things existing. From those reasons a philosopher is able to make a judgment about the best way to live ones life. If you are not interested in providing reasons for why you think something is of low value, or are not interested in evaluating why you think that 'without static patterns I would be a zombie' then I can only conclude that you do not value philosophy or thinking intellectually about the world around you. I would be very happy to be proved wrong but as far as I can tell you have no interest in doing such introspection..
>>>>>>>> As you say, we are told they determine absolutes. But is an absolute >>>>>>>> only a bad thing? If you haven't read it already, Pirsig talks about >>>>>>>> the word extensively in the Copleston annotations. Below are a couple >>>>>>>> of quotes.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not sure how I came to believe that reason and logic determine >>>>>>> absolutes? I did not state that I was told, and I did not state that >>>>>>> 'absolute' was bad. It's a conventional term that has mostly lost it's >>>>>>> value; at least for me it has little value. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why does it have little value? >>>>> >>>>> Why must I have a reason why it has little value? Doesn't value come >>>>> first. - I see value as relative. >>>> >>>> Right. Value first, oaths and reasons for those oaths later. Can you come >>>> up with intellectual reasons why the term 'absolute' has little value to >>>> you? >>> >>> What type of "intellectual reason" are you requesting? Can I present an >>> intellectual reason why faeries have little value for me? Can I present an >>> intellectual reason why God has little value for me? Little value is >>> little value. What kind of "intellectual reason" would satisfy you? >> >> I thought I made it pretty clear but I'll state it again. I would like an >> intellectual reason why the term 'absolute' has little value to you. >> Thank-you. > > Sorry, I've got nothing for you other than to say low value is and remains > low value. I feel no need to justify or rationalize that which I experience > as insignificant. If you would like to present an example of 'absolute' I > might find it significant, otherwise I have no response. > If you have no reason for why you think something is of low value, how will you know to avoid that low value the next time it comes around? >>>>>> Yes they are all four terms representing the indivisible, undefinable >>>>>> and unknowable. This could be the same as 'transcendent' as well. >>>>>> However I like the term Dynamic Quality the best. >>>>> >>>>> I like what it points to better! >>>> >>>> You value Dynamic Quality. That's good. What about static quality? >>> >>> Since without static patterns I would be a zombie, I value static quality. >> >> What do you mean by zombie? You would literally suck the blood of other >> people, or something else? I'm confused. > > I value static quality too. > *confused* >>>>>>>> So if we are only interested in DQ, reason and logic are not our >>>>>>>> thing. But if we are interested in intellectual value they are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am interested in reality, and I thought metaphysics was the branch of >>>>>>> philosophy that examines the nature of reality. So I am interested in >>>>>>> what it means that 'reason' and 'logic' are static (patterned) value; I >>>>>>> am not doubting that they represent value. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can >>>>>>> perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, >>>>>>> in part, the result of our history and current patterns of values." - >>>>>>> RMP >>>>>> >>>>>> The Metaphysics of Quality is interested in reality. The MOQ is a >>>>>> metaphysics. A metaphysics is a static quality, intellectual pattern of >>>>>> value. The MOQ, as part of it's static structure, breaks reality into >>>>>> two. DQ and static quality. One is defined. The other is not. If we >>>>>> try and define DQ, it is immediately sq and no longer DQ. This is why >>>>>> good is a noun.. >>>>>> >>>>>> ". Good as a noun rather than an adjective is all the Metaphysics of >>>>>> Quality is about. Of course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or an >>>>>> adjective or anything else definable, but if you had to reduce the whole >>>>>> Metaphysics of Quality to a single sentence, that would be it." - Last >>>>>> sentence of Lila. >>>>> >>>>> And a noun is a static/conventional (relative) pattern. I think here is >>>>> where the Buddhist doctrine of two truths can be instructive. Also, >>>>> there is interconnectedness, maybe interdependence, which loosens up that >>>>> conception of noun quite a bit, in my experience and understanding, at >>>>> least. >>>> >>>> Isn't an adjective a 'loose' noun? Why does Pirsig explicitly say "noun >>>> rather than an adjective"? > > I do not know why RMP _explicitly_ chose language as an analogy, but I > suppose he was stressing the importance of understanding the world is nothing > but value. > > "Now Phaedrus remembered when he had gone to the reservation after > Dusenberry's death and told them he was a friend of Dusenberry's they had > answered 'Oh, yes, Dusenberry. He was a _good_ man.' They always put their > emphasis on the _good_, just as John had with the dog. A white person would > have said he was a good _man_ or balanced the emphasis between the two words. > The Indians didn't see man as an object to whom the adjective 'good' may or > may not be applied. When the Indians used it they meant that _good_ is the > whole center of experience and that Dusenberry, in his nature, was an > embodiment or incarnation of this center of life." Right... Good is at the centre of everything. If good is at the centre of everything, which sounds like stability to me, why do things have to be loose and interconnected? -David 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
