Well folks you do not struggle with these issues alone, there is a wider
world out there, and it is more open than it used to be in certain places:
http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/speculative-materialisms-thinking-the-absolute-with-meillassoux-and-guattari-2/
David M
-----Original Message-----
From: MarshaV
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MD] Definitions.
On Feb 23, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Horse wrote:
Hi Marsha
I've got to say that I agree with DMB about the contradiction of terms
within your definition of self.
If something is static or stable how can it be ever-changing?
Patterns may maintain a static, stable identity at the same time as they and
their context are undergoing constant change. Think of the Ship of Theseus,
or a parade (Hume) where everyone drops out but is replaced so that the
parade is maintained, or the body with its cells constantly being
replaced...
If something is static or stable it tends not to change over time or if it
does change it changes slowly, thus retaining it's stability.
RMP is known as a Process philosopher, and process is change. Within the
interaction with an individual, a pattern is constantly changing as the
context changes and each pattern event rolls back into itself to be renewed.
But maybe read the essay on Whitehead and Pirsig by Andrew Sneddon. Value
is all about activity.
And there is the Buddhist perspective where change is central.
If something is ever-changing then it tends to be unstable and/or chaotic.
My examples of Ship of Theseus, a parade and the body do not involve
instability or chaos. In fact the change is a requirement of proper
functioning.
Patterns of value that are stable persist over time which would appear to
be the antithesis of your definition.
I stress ever-changing because I like the Buddhist perspective, but it would
be the same within process philosophy. In Wikipedia RMP is mentioned
directly.
"Process philosophy (or ontology of becoming) identifies metaphysical
reality with change and development. Since the time of Plato and Aristotle,
philosophers have posited true reality as "timeless", based on permanent
substances, whilst processes are denied or subordinated to timeless
substances. IfSocrates changes, becoming sick, Socrates is still the same
(the substance of Socrates being the same), and change (his sickness) only
glides over his substance: change is accidental, whereas the substance is
essential. Therefore, classic ontology denies any full reality to change,
which is conceived as only accidental and not essential. This classical
ontology is what made knowledge and a theory of knowledge possible, as it
was thought that a science of something in becoming was an impossible feat
to achieve.[1]
"In opposition to the classical model of change as purely accidental and
illusory (as by Aristotle), process philosophy regards change as the
cornerstone of reality–the cornerstone of the Being thought as Becoming.
Modern philosophers who appeal to process rather than substance include
Nietzsche, Heidegger,Charles Peirce, Alfred North Whitehead, Robert M.
Pirsig, Charles Hartshorne, Arran Gare and Nicholas Rescher. In physics Ilya
Prigogine[2] distinguishes between the "physics of being" and the "physics
of becoming". Process philosophy covers not just scientific intuitions and
experiences, but can be used as aconceptual bridge to facilitate discussions
among religion, philosophy, and science.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
But the two-part essay by Andrew Sneddon is well worth a read.
If you insist that static patterns of value are ever changing - i.e.
stable patterns are unstable - would you mind showing how you manage to
overcome what appears to be an inconsistency in your definition.
Philosophy often requires refining terminology. I've tried to do that. But
you cannot please everyone.
"Unlike subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not
insist on a single exclusive truth." (LILA, Chapter 8)
I think I see what you're getting at but this part of your definition just
doesn't appear to make sense and repeating it over and over offers no
explanation.
I suppose it is my poor attempt at defending my position when it is being
attacked. I am not attacking anyone and invite other perspectives. I
realize different points-of-view will appeal to different people.
Marsha
Cheers
Horse
On 23/02/2013 09:18, MarshaV wrote:
Greetings,
Re: self & static patterns of value
One definition I provide is concerning 'self'. If one asks: What is the
relationship between the individual and static quality? I'd answer: "The
“self” is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and
impermanent static patterns: inorganic patterns, biological patterns,
social patterns and intellectual patterns of value flowing in the
infinite field of Dynamic Quality."
My definition of static patterns of value is of repetitious and
ever-changing process:
Static patterns of value are repetitive processes, conditionally
co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing, that pragmatically tend to
persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. Within the MoQ,
these patterns are morally categorized into a four-level, evolutionary,
hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.
Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns:
patterns depend upon ( exist relative to) innumerable causes and
conditions (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) parts and the
collection of parts (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to)
conceptual designation (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent
existence. Further, these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an
individual's static pattern of life history.
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
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
