Hello there, JAN --
On Thurs., 2/28/13 7:58 AM, "Jan Anders Andersson" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi again Ham
My static name pattern is Jan Anders, Not Ian (Glendinning?)
My apologies, Jan. I misread the 'J' for an 'I'. Guess I'm overdue for new
new pair of glasses. (;-]
Jan, responding to my 2/27 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. (Watch
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
something 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
Change is not material, it's essential.
If you are speaking as a 'logical positivist', I can well appreciate the
need for "feedback" in maintaining any process. After all, it is a
cause-and-effect world that we experience -- a self-constructed reality
based on changing sensory inputs. However, apart from practical concerns, I
don't see heaping one process change upon another as a guide to "excellence"
in a moral or philosophical sense. If that was Pirsig's aim in publishing
two books on the Metaphysics of Quality, I would be sadly disappointed.
Yes, we are "free to change". But change is itself is intrinsic to Nature.
And while intuiting "what it might be" may lead to an improved result, it
would appear that your objective here is simply to manipulate objects in an
experiential environment rather than enhance our understanding of Ultimate
Reality and the purpose of our journey through it. Self-improvement, it
seems to me, is the "essential" goal. And this can only be achieved via the
study of philosophy, and metaphysics in particular.
I'm also sorry that you chose Obama's campaign quote to illustrate your
point. Doesn't it strike you as the height of arrogance for the elected
president of a free republic to claim to his constituency that "WE are the
ones WE've been waiting for"?
But thanks for the clarification of your book on feedback values. I shall
have to add MALC to my collection. Where can I purchase it?
Yours respectfully,
-- Ham
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
