Hi again Ham My static name pattern is Jan Anders, Not Ian (Glendinning?)
27 feb 2013 kl. 20.15 Hamilton Priday wrote: > > Hi Ian -- > > On Wednesday, 2/27, at 4:05 AM, Ian Andersson wrote: > >> The main difference is if there are processes that are reproduced or bound >> in some kind of loop. Hydrogen atoms for >> example are vere stable processes while what we know about the life of this >> planet or some economic policies >> doesn't seem to be very stable. Hydrogen is Hydrogen, if the structure of >> the actual lump of energy is changed >> then it will be called something else than Hydrogen. >> >> The four levels of static quality, which is one of RMP's most important >> contribution to human knowledge, >> shows the difference between levels of stable processes that have about the >> same conditions, and processes >> that are dependent on others that are not dependent on the first. The >> biologic processes that are dependent >> on the inorganic matter while inorganic processes doesn't bother about >> biology at all for example. >> An intellectual thought can be hold by any human. >> >> Static quality is how something can be stable, repeated and reproduced, >> while dynamic is how just anything >> stable can change into just anything else. That is why it is impossible to >> exactly define dynamic quality, >> just because static patterns are some, but not the complete series of, >> possible examples of what DQ can do for you. > > You are much too materialistic for a philosopher, Ian. This is an interesting change of focus from an object to a subject. I call this shootgun-philosophy. Remember my analogy, how to use a mirror in different ways? A text is a number of characters in a certain order, it is a static pattern. What you read from this sequence is your personal view. If you write something about somone else, the only thing you see is your own words, just like what you see by turning the mirror at your self. Its your face you see, not mine. In scientific work mirrors are used in telescopes for example to look at the stars out in the space. Scientists are using the mirrors to look out and they discuss what they see. They don't fool around looking at each others back. "Hey I can se my eye here!". > > Static is not a synonym for "stable", nor is the stability of a process what > I was addressing. Even a hydrogen atom has a single negatively charged > electron spinning around its positively charged proton, not to mention quarks > and other subatomic particles that are dynamically involved in the process. > Existence itself -- every last bit of it (to quote a familiar author) -- is > the appearance of matter and energy in a constant state of flux. The fact > that an object is defined as a "stable event" does not exclude it from > existential process. > > The only "static" factors in human experience are abstractly rationalized > precepts, by which I mean formulations, principles, axioms, mathematical > equations, lingual systems, and the like. Everything in our relational world > properly qualifies as "dynamic" with respect to everything else. And that > includes those problematic "patterns" which make Quality (Value) realizable > in relative terms. In fact, it is our ability to differentiate Value that > actualizes experiential reality. > > All of the above hinges on a Primary Source and a "value-sensible agent" > which is the cognizant individual. Value is primary to the experience of a > differentiated world. But without a metaphysical Source there can be no such > agent, hence no value realization. So, while Pirsig is right that Quality > (Value) is primary to experience, he hides (obscures?) the Source in a void > of "indefinability". This, for me, is the critical flaw in his Metaphysics > of Quality. It's unfortunate that "static" and "dynamic" are by now > thoroughly ingrained in his ontology, for the orientation of these terms is > an obstacle to those of a mystical persuasion (such as Marsha), as well as > others here who hold to a more conventional epistemology. > > Thanks for the elucidation, Ian. I hope this more clearly explains what I > was getting at in yesterday's message. I see MOQ as an intellectual tool for "maintaining processes". Where one crucial element of maintaining a process is feedback - experience. Getting feedback is an activity of defining values. Without feedback a value-sensible agent will not be able to make the right choice that leads to a change. A change into betterness will be unreachable without the experience from the actual process status. (Whatch your step!) But knowing the actual state is not enough, you must have an experience from what it might be, also together with experience from earlier processes. In my book MALC I presented a whole arsenal of different feedback-values, at all levels, so the reader could have someting to identify his own life-process to. Plus a little hint of what is the ultimate base for excellence. Marsha read it twice and she told me she laughed several times while reading it. I like that. The Source in us is still indefinable, just because we aren't finished yet and we are still free to change. "Change will not come if we wait for some other person other time. We are the one's we've been waiting for. We are the change that we see." Barack Obama > > Essentially yours, > Ham > Change is not material, it's essential. Bets wishes Jan Anders > > 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
