david buchanan wrote:
These quotes have been selected and presented to clarify that one key point. Do
they clarify it for you? Do you see how radical this is? We really cannot
rightly understand the MOQ if we think of static patterns as actual objects, as
in SOM. The MOQ, in effect, says that scientific material and common sense
realist are one giant reification problem.
Marsha by repeating her much-criticized contradictory word salad:
I view static patterns of value as 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.
You can hardly accuse me of confusing static patterns of value with actual
objects.
dmb says:
Right, your confusion is much worse than that. You've confused static patterns
with actual reality in a way that's quite "unique", to put it politely.
Apparently, you don't understand what it means to "have no independent,
inherent existence" because that claim is contradicted by the previous sentence
where you say, "Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other
patterns: patterns depend upon innumerable causes and conditions, depend upon
parts and the collection of parts, depend upon conceptual designations".
Static patterns do not depend on conceptual designations, they ARE conceptual
designations. And they don't exist in relation to each other or depend on
causes and conditions because they are humanly constructed concepts, not
reality. As I keep trying to tell you, reality is ever-changing, not static
patterns. You're trying to define static patterns as if they were Dynamic
Quality. You're confusing static patterns with reality in your own, with
half-baked Buddhism and it's misapplication to a metaphysics that already has
the Buddhist ideas within it.
Here are the quotes from that post which are most relevant to your mistake -
relevant because they tell you that static patterns ARE ideas, are concepts, as
opposed to ever-changing realities.
"The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce
what we know as matter. The scientific community that has produced
Complementarity almost invariably presumes that matter comes first and produces
ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ says that the idea that
matter comes first is a high quality idea!" [LILA'S CHILD, Annotation 67]
"It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that although 'common
sense' dictates that inorganic nature came first, actually 'common sense' which
is a set of ideas, has to come first. This 'common sense' is arrived at through
a huge web of socially approved evaluations of various alternatives. The key
term here is "evaluation," i.e., quality decisions. The fundamental reality is
not the common sense or the objects and laws approved of by common sense but
the approval itself and the quality that leads to it." [LILA'S CHILD,
Annotation 97]
And a couple more from previous posts that also make this point and are
relevant to your confusion.
"The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the
Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophic
tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although the world it talks about
does."
"Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is
a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A
metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any
metaphysics."
Your description of static patterns conflates it with Dynamic Quality in all
kinds of ways and this is predicated on a misconception of the MOQ's most basic
distinction. Once you do that, everything that follows will also be a confused
mess. That's what your often repeated word salad is; a confused mess. I could
literally spend all day pointing out the various errors. It's like a Buddhist
parrot threw up on MOQ.
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
