Hello David,
On Aug 11, 2012, at 8:48 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.. I will ignore the condescending lecture, but this _interrogation_ is about to come to an end if you cannot tolerate my form of honesty. Maybe like the Europeans, who came to this country, you devalue and bully everyone who doesn't think and speak like you? That would be your problem, not mine. We both know you cannot speak for all philosophy or all philosophers, and I have not even claimed such an illustrious label. I am here because I find the MoQ rings true in that there is Value which is experienced as patterned and unpatterned. I am interested in the understanding and evolution of static (patterned) value. Static value represents all that human beings know, so I find it fascinating. >>>>>>>>> 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? This is a psychological question not a philosophical question. I already explained that 'low value' represent insignificance, not bad. >>>>>>> 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? I value static quality too. >>>>>>>>> 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. Sorry, but another guy, George, could have been a 'bad' man. I think RMP is pointing to the _evaluation_ being the center of life; in John's case that was 'good'. The evaluation (good) is recognized as more significant than the object (man). Thank you. 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
