http://www.nordprag.org/papers/Pihlstrom%20-%20Pragmatic%20Metaphysics%20of%20the%20Fact-Value%20Entanglement.pdf
2013/4/13 MarshaV <[email protected]> > > Hi Ham, > > To post my explanation/definition again: > > 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 have no independent, inherent existence. Further, these patterns > pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static pattern of life > history. > > Dynamic Quality is not divisible, not definable and not knowable. > > The fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality. Static > patterns of value are not things that hold still for analysis, but > projections of things: ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and > impermanent. The empirical experience within the MoQ is of value patterns. > > > Marsha > > > > On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:51 AM, "Hamilton Priday" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Marsha and All -- > > > >> Greetings Ham, > >> > >> I care what you say. Everybody's input may offer insight, so I certainly > >> do care what you say. > >> > >> Marsha > > > > I appreciate your expression of solicitude, Marsha. Actually, > yesterday’s message got away from me as I tried to save it to my drafts > file. Since my wife is doing most of the e-mail messaging these days, I’ve > not kept up with the “technology”. But your response to the quotes I sent > provides a platform on which to make some points that came to mind when I > reviewed them. > > > > Let me first address Dan’s argument: “We do not experience Dynamic > > Quality. 'It' IS experience.” > > > > Obviously, Mr. Pirsig had a philosophical reason to divide Quality into > two forms or modes. The problem, as I’ve previously stated, is that the > descriptors “dynamic” and “static” are not consistent with what we > experience or intuit about reality. > > > > The reality of experience is a “dynamic process” in which subjects and > objects come into existence, are transformed by interacting and/or aging, > then disappear from the world. We can only speculate as to what “Ultimate > Reality” is, but there is no evidence or logic by which to conclude it is > “dynamic”. If, as Pirsig implies, Quality (Value) is the true Reality, > then this differentiation of created time and space, subject and object, > good and bad, and a myriad of things in process is only an “experiential > perspective” of Value. > > > > Note that Pirsig himself, as quoted by Dan, refers to experience as > “change” (process?), inferring that its Primary Source (DQ, Value?) is > uncreated. > > > > “...in the MOQ, there is no pre-existing subject or object. Experience > and Dynamic Quality become synonymous. Change is probably the first concept > emerging from this Dynamic experience.” > > > > Now, I don’t expect the MoQers to reverse their position on static and > dynamic; yet if they did, it would afford them a more logical paradigm for > the creation of the value spectrum that constitutes experiential existence. > And, though the author doesn’t define his Source, it’s a reasonable > assumption that his DQ transcends the process and differentiation of > created things—that it is, in fact, eternal and immutable. Not that it has > to be, but isn’t such a paradigm more compatible with the ontologies of > Plato, Buddha, even the theologians? > > > > As you know from my book, I posit the Source as Essence, and define it > as the primary, unconditional Reality from which all experienced things are > negated. The creation process is “valuistic” in that the brain delineates > “objective otherness” from Value which is the essence of conscious > (subjective) sensibility. > > > > But Essence is more than either Quality or Value, because these sensible > attributes are only “man’s measure” of things. Undifferentiated > Sensibility (including what we would call “intelligence”) is essential for > the exquisite cosmic order and balance which characterizes physical > existence. Even modern physicists have concluded that the DNA > transformations responsible for the evolution of living organisms could not > have arisen from cause-and-effect probability. > > > > So, in conclusion, Dynamic Quality is NOT experience. Rather, it is the > source of Value from which experience is derived. You and I are finite > existents whose experience of the particular represents the Value of the > Whole. Only conscious sensibility above the level of differentiated > space/time existence can be One with Essence. > > > > Again, thanks for the opportunity. I can only hope it adds some > clarification to the dialog previously quoted. > > > > Essentially yours, > > 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 > 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 > -- parser 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
