On Aug 12, 2012, at 6:33 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.
>
> Okay so you are here because the MOQ interests you. I am too. Now
> what? Are we here to exchange quotes from various 'philosophers'? Are
> we here to think inwardly about how the MOQ applies to our own own
> lives?
I think it is important that we do. That we can be forced to explain on demand
goes too far.
> Are we here to determine the best interpretation of the MOQ on here?
We are here to do our best. I don't know where the effort put into these
discussions will lead, nor do I think the idea that the world is nothing but
value is confined to the the MD.
> I mean, how much introspection do you think we should do when we
> come on here?
I am an off-the-scale introvert, AND I find value in other people's ideas.
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> How is it psychological as opposed to philosophical? Low value can be
> anything and it isn't always related to states of the brain..
Explain why you think psychology would reduce to brain states? That seems like
an interesting statement. There is, it seems to me, the brain, sense organs
and nervous system, and that is just the beginning.
Within a metaphysics where value is primary (before self and objects), it
should be enough to make the statement that the concept lacks value. Do I
(self) really have access to 'the reasons' that come before the self? Wouldn't
forcing a reason be like explaining the number of dancing angels on the head of
a pin? Or closing the door after the horses had escaped?
I grant, though, that it might be a concept of great value to others.
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> Okay. Let's forget the zombies then..
Great, it was my mistake; I should have just stuck with a straight forward
answer.
>>>>>>>>>>> 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).
>
> I disagree. I think the point is the good is *before* the subjective
> evaluation as to what is good. Quality is before the object *and* the
> subject. Quality is even before European and Native American culture
> as well.
So you think there is _good_ before there is a subjective evaluation of good or
bad? It seems an awkward statement, but if you mean that first _good_ as a
synonym for value, then I agree.
> Thanks Marsha,
>
> -David
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
