Mark, As you said to me recently: " Please read Pirsig's books with this in mind."
Marsha On Sep 16, 2012, at 11:59 AM, 118 wrote: > Hi Marsha, > > When you say that "there is Value", what do you mean by this? It sounds > like a slogan to march by. When you say that the world is "nothing but > value" this means little since I could say that world is "nothing but > cheese" and be saying exactly the same thing. What does the phrase > "nothing but value" mean to you? What is value beyond its static > representation? I am looking for something more along the lines of > process, or creativity. > > All you need to do is use different words to present this concept of value. > This will provide a focal point from which to have a meaningful > discussion. I you are concerned about not being able to support your idea > of value, not to worry. This forum is one of self examination as well as > blustery interaction. > > If you are not interested in truth, then what ground are you speaking from? > There seems to be no basis for your posts, if truth has nothing to do with > them. Truth and falsehood become exactly the same thing. Goodness and > badness become the same thing. Value and ignorance become the same thing, > since you do not see any truth in any of them. When you say "I am not > interested in truth", what exactly are you NOT interested in? What is this > thing that lacks interest for you? You are obviously pointing to something > not to be interested in. > > If you wish not to discuss truth we can say the same thing. This implies > that you have a specific thing that you do not want to discuss. You cannot > use the word "truth" without that word meaning something to you. Why are > you not interested in discussing truth? Is it perhaps a red herring so far > as MOQ is concerned. Does MOQ comprise statements which have nothing to do > with truth? Is the idea that the "world is nothing" but value represent > the same thing as "the world is nothing but cheese"? Just a pattern > floating in the wind? We all start somewhere with what we believe. This > for us is truth. It lies before static patterns; it is what creates the > static patterns. We could say that the concept of patterns is true for us, > and start there. If truth has nothing to do with your idea of static > patterns, then what makes it important to you? > > Yes, static value is analogized as the patterns which we make. SQ is a > term which points to the body of results of patterning. This seems to be a > truth for you. If it is not, then do you have alternatives which show that > it is not true? As you have said, it is important to decide what one > considers false. This would be the opposite of true, no? > > This is not a forum to force ideas on people. This is a forum to discuss > ideas. Everybody has an opinion. The strength of an opinion, is in how it > is presented rhetorically. This form of presentation requires critical > thinking and not simply the posting of slogans. The internet is replete > with slogans. The drive is to find ways of presenting MOQ which can be > understood by the non-initiated. It is important to keep MOQ at the > forefront at the expense of our specific egos. Remember, the self does not > exist. Be free! > > Cheers, > Mark > > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 3:30 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> dmb, >> >> The basic MoQ solution is to understand that there is >> Value(Dynamic/static), and that static value is 'patterned'. Do you think >> that your writing the phrase "MoQ's truth" negates all other aspects of >> 'truth'? The pattern 'truth' is just one pattern among many, and it goes >> beyond your definition. The fundamental principal of the MoQ is the idea >> that the world is nothing but value, after that it is all analogy. Analogy! >> >> I have stated many times that I do not label 'truth' wrong, or bad, or >> "reject it." I have nothing to say about 'truth'. The idea of truth does >> not interest me. So while I concede that there is nothing inherently bad >> with the intellectual static pattern of value labeled 'truth', neither is >> there anything inherently wrong with my finding it more useful to consider >> objects of knowledge (stuff in the encyclopedia) _patterns_ rather than >> truths. In fact, I am staying closer to the MoQ's fundamental principle. >> I have never insisted, or suggested, that you or anyone adopt my position. >> I like the idea of knowledge being labeled 'patterns'; it is the best >> representation of static quality. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> p.s. As far as my experience goes, the fundamental principle of the MoQ >> cannot be violated. I think your accusing me of undermining the MoQ has >> more to do with my indifference to your intellectual investment in William >> James. >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 14, 2012, at 4:04 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Mark said to dmb: >>> >>> ...Character assassination through personal terms such as "confused" has >> no place in a setting which worships Arete. ...I am not sure that Marsha is >> confused. ... The confusion may be yours in terms of what her intention is >> when she posts in this forum. >>> ...In summary, by placing Quality above Truth, we are redefining truth >> within the paradigm of Quality. It is difficult to compare two paradigms >> except through how useful they are. >>> >>> >>> dmb says: >>> Saying Marsha is confused is not an attack on her character. It is a >> criticism of her assertions and comments in a philosophy discussion group. >> In fact, any fair reader should be able to see (below) that I explained >> exactly which concepts she is mixing up, which ideas she is confusing. To >> put it in your terms, she's so confused that she's using Pirsig's criticism >> of the old paradigm to dismiss Pirsig's new definition of truth. As I like >> to put it, she has confused the problem (eternally fixed Truth) with the >> solution (provisional pragmatic truths) and so the consequence is to >> dismiss the MOQ's solution. >>> >>> At this point, neither you nor Marsha has had anything relevant to say >> about the substance of this criticism. The is no reason for me to think >> that it does not still stand. It is reproduced below in it's entirety. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:08 AM, david buchanan <[email protected] >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha said: >>>> The term 'truth' has a long history and a deep association with the >> search >>>> for certainty.. Clinging to the term 'truth' with its deeply embedded >>>> existing denotations and connotations doesn't move toward a new quality >>>> orientation. Using 'patterns' clearly cuts the ties to the old >>>> understanding. It's fresh, it's new, it's a better representation. >>>> >>>> >>>> David Harding replied: >>>> So this is your explanation as to why 'truth' has issues. It has >> 'deeply >>>> embedded existing denotations and connotations' and has a history with >> the >>>> search for certainty. ....Everyone knows what truth is. It is just >> that >>>> our intellectual understanding of the best place for it within >> metaphysics >>>> for the last 2500 years has been wrong. If, using the MOQ, we get a >> better >>>> understanding of truth, then that is valuable, not just for truth into >> the >>>> future, but for everything ever written about truth. We can take those >>>> truths from the past which are valuable and discard those which are not. >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> dmb says: >>>> >>>> Marsha rejects the term "truth" because she prefers "patterns". This is >>>> absurd for one simple reason; THE MOQ DEFINES TRUTH AS PATTERNS. In >> effect, >>>> her stance rejects the MOQ's truth because she prefers the MOQ's truth. >>>> Clearly, the woman is confused. >>>> >>>> >>>> To put it in a nutshell, Marsha's incoherent stance on truth is a >> result of >>>> confusing the problem with Pirsig's solution to that problem. He ditches >>>> Platonic Truth and Objective Truth and replaces it with a pragmatic >> truth >>>> but Marsha ham-handedly ditches the replacement too. She treats the >>>> solution as if it were identical to the problem and so refuses to use >> the >>>> word "truth" and declares no interest in the concept even when talking >>>> about it here, in the context of the MOQ. Apparently, Marsha cannot >> discern >>>> the difference between the MOQ's theory of truth and Plato's fixed and >>>> eternal Truth or the Objective Truth of SOM. And so she simply rejects >> the >>>> word truth altogether, rejects the notion of truth altogether. >>>> >>>> Please notice how Marsha's stance is quite nonsensical even on the most >>>> basic level. Her mistakes are so fundamental that they in the same >>>> neighborhood as grammatical errors and the misuse of terms. She keeps >>>> saying that she prefers the term "patterns" over the term "truth". But >> - as >>>> I keep saying - the MOQ defines "truth" as "patterns". >>>> >>>> "That was exactly what is meant by the Metaphysics of Quality. Truth is >> a >>>> static intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality." >>>> >>>> The MOQ's pragmatic truth is defined as static intellectual patterns, >> but >>>> Marsha prefers static patterns instead of truth? >>>> >>>> The are good reasons to reject the old conceptions of truth and adopt >> the >>>> pragmatic theory of truth instead. But Marsha is confused in such a way >>>> that she mistakenly uses those good reasons to reject the MOQ's improved >>>> conception of truth. She uses Pirsig's attack against Pirsig. She uses >> the >>>> MOQ to undermine the MOQ. It's hackery of the worst kind wherein the >>>> repairs cannot be discerned from the damage. It's worse than useless. It >>>> creates a mess, confuses and conflates the core concepts and, to the >> extent >>>> that other people are confused or misled, Marsha's contributions are >>>> destructive. >>>> >>>> The problem, Pirsig says, is that "Reason and Quality had become >> separated >>>> and in conflict with each other" back in the days of Plato. Plato had >> made >>>> Quality subordinate to reason, to truth. The MOQ's solution is to >> reverse >>>> that priority. >>>> >>>> "Reason was to be subordinate, logically, to Quality." >>>> >>>> That's how Pirsig puts it in ZAMM but then you see this same solution in >>>> Lila. The MOQ's pragmatic truth maintains that reversed priority so that >>>> truth is within Quality and subordinate to Quality. >>>> >>>>>> "That was exactly what is meant by the Metaphysics of Quality. Truth >> is a >>>>>> static intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality." >> >>>> To say that truth is within a larger entity called Quality is to say >> that >>>> truth is subordinate to Quality. In the MOQ, all of our concepts, >> truths, >>>> and definitions have a relationship to this larger "entity" called >> Quality, >>>> to the primary empirical reality, but it is a subordinate relationship. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> 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 >> > 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
