Andre, To put it as clearly as I can, I prefer to think of patterns as hypothetical (supposed but not necessarily real or true.) Once one accepts the MoQ's fundamental principal that the world is nothing but Value, then 'expanded rationality' occurs when an individual transforms the natural tendency to reify self and world into the natural tendency to hold all static patterns of value to be hypothetical (supposed but not necessarily real or true.) By using 'hypothetical' I think there is less of a tendency toward intellectual arrogance. Understanding static (patterned) value as hypothetical acknowledges the incompleteness of what we know and makes room for additional inquiry with new possibilities; it promotes an attitude of fearless curiosity: gumption. It moves one away from thinking of entities as existing inherently and independent of consciousness. I am not insisting, nor even suggesting, that you adopt my position.
Marsha On Nov 14, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: > Marsha to Andre: > Please notice I wrote "seems to". It makes for weak prose, but I chose those > words intentionally. I try to use a passive style... > > Andre: > Ok Marsha, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept, by you > presenting it in this way that a 'conversation' between us may me possible > (but I keep on holding my breath). When you say "I use a passive > style..."what do you mean? > It sounds like the opening chapter of ZMM wnere the narrator compares the > perspective of driving the car and sitting in a motorbike...the first hint at > the challenge to SOM (the view from the car) and the path we are asked to > follow (from the bike). > > When you say 'passive style' are you sitting behind the windscreen or are you > sitting on the bike? > > You continue... of constructing sentences as it better reflects my > understanding that static patterns (objects of knowledge)... > > Andre: > This I do not understand or rather I cannot follow. It seems to me you are > still sitting behind the screen (i.e. SOM i.e. as if detached). Static > patterns are NOT 'objects of knowledge'. At least not to my understanding nor > experience as I live them everyday. What makes you construct them as objects > of knowledge? I do not follow your reasoning. > > You continue: > '...are impermanent and ever-changing... > > Andre: > Of course I have an issue here with you. I agree, static patterns are > 'impermanent...' I do not agree that they are 'ever changing'. That is why I > like Pirsig's 'static' and Anthony's 'stable' clarification of what is meant. > Static patterns...they are so old...when they are damaged have one important > message: return to stability. That does not mean a new configuration. It mean > re- establish the 'old' pattern. You may not step in the same river twice BUT > you do step in the river. The river is the static patterns and this is not > semantics. > > I must also reiterate the comments made by dmb regarding you notion of static > patterns being 'ever-changing'. As I tried to explain above ( and this does > NOT make me a hensh-man of dmb nor anyone else...come on Marsha!!) the main > message within static patterns, and the reason why they can be called 'static > patterns' is that whatever fluctuation happens from within (which I still > think is impossible)the pattern's objective is remain stable. From within > nothing happens...it is stable. If any change should or could occur this > happens from 'outside' energies. > > You continue:- hypothetical, not necessarily real or true. > > Andre: > This is the bottom line. I have given you my comments on your use of the > expression 'hypothetical'. So everything is reduced to language ? theory? > speculation? doubt? insinuation? There are countless other expressions. As > the Buddha said, and as Pirsig says...check it out for yourself...don't take > my words for it. > > Is Quality hypothetical to you Marsha? Is direct experience hypothetical? Who > or what is it that can even ask that question? I think you go over the top on > many issues here and will not defend many of your projections. > > You say: ...not necessarily real or true. How can you find out? Only by > direct experience right? But if you question the validity or 'realness' or > 'trueness' of your own experience...where are you then? If you hold 'direct > experence' as 'hypothetical' you are lost. > It is like questioning everyday whether I am alive or not ...and really > wrecking my brains over it... Complete nonsense!!! > > You certainly have no reason, no interest, no gain, no loss, nothing to > contribute to a discussion on metaphysical issues such as ones dealing with > Pirsig's MoQ if you remain atv such a level. > > Now, if you give me reasonable , genuine answers to my objections we MAY have > a conversation going. If you reply with your usual nonsense quotes, youtube > shit and Pirsig/Hagan quotes out of context... only trying to make your > self-centered points (I'd say more confusing yourself) I really am finished > with you ( as I am finished with JA and Mark for showing, once again, their > complete ignorance of understanding one iota of MoQ to dmb...it is disgusting > and absolutely pathetic to read their responses to him.) you should really > jump up and down when JA says:"Economics is not about values" and "Economics > is a way to AVOID values". But you remain sitting on the fence whilst you > feigned participation. > > St Mark has the ignoramus audacity to write: > > Get in touch with the real world, dmb, you know only a little. Why don't > you just stick to what James' wrote rather than pretend to know more than > that? You are making a mockery out of the forum with your false > pretenses. Your writing shows you just to be a naive, uniformed, child > when it comes to sociology, politics, or even Quality. Why don't you write > about something that you know about? > > Andre: > What Mark is doing here is, typically from a SOM perspective separate out > things ( which is fine) but does not reintegrate things (which is not fine) > but dmb does and the missio of Phaedrus was translated into the MOQ!!! Mark > has no clue about separation and reintegration which was one of Phaedrus' > main motivations for continuing his quest. Mark only wants to talk about > 'Quality', (whatever that means) and alledgedly presents us every week with > lots of "quality' posts . > > Mark: they are nothing but self-inflationary/self aggrandizing, ego-centric, > megalo-manianical farts of drivel. > Politics/economics/socialism/capitalism/psychology/psychiatry/biology...what > the fuck. The MOQ has nothing to say about them...unless you are an 'expert'? > Pirsig had no idea about them and you need to be an expert on those BEFORE > you can attempt to integrate Quality. .. . > > You have it all backwards my friend and you, being a 'scientist', and you > giving off on science for so long makes me really wonder about the quality of > scientist you really are. If you are anything like your writings well, ,,,I > wish you well ...and please go away...you have no idea of Quality...and not > much about science either. > > 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
