> [Marsha] > First, I would like to point out how your turning the statement "I don't care > what you think." into a quantity that represents a generality is misleading. > In my last post I used the words "I definitely DO NOT CARE" (see below), but > I used them very specifically in regards to a very specific style of > discourse. I did not use them in any general sense of not caring what others > thinks. Hopefully, others are intelligent enough to see through this type of > misrepresentation. Assuming a general and negative context was > misrepresenting my statements. You were guilty of that, weren't you?
[djh] No - I'm not assuming a general negative context. I just think that if someone says 'I don't care about x', then from a certain perspective this isn't really correct as giving something your attention is a form of caring. > [Marsha rings a familiar tune..] > "I do not assume one best explanation of anything.".. "In your opinion." .. > "Again, in your opinion." [djh] Yes. You don't like the idea that intellectual quality is fixed and static and can be ranked based on how good it is. In your view, static quality is 'ever-changing' and so whether one thing is better than something else is just someone's relative opinion and these opinions cannot really capture the 'ever-changing' nature of things. Here's even a quote which you've used in the past to support your opinion. "One can then examine intellectual realities the same way one examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns of values." But the problem with this quote is it's taken out of context... If we look at what the sentences are at the start of this quote.. "One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along." we see that Pirsig also said that we ought to seek the *highest quality intellectual explanation of things*. That's what this discussion board does. Each person has their own ideas and we can determine which ones are good and which are not. Your idea of static patterns as 'ever-changing' goes against the fundamentally static nature of static patterns and so is a low quality explanation. > [Marsha] > In my understanding, Dynamic Quality is unpatterned; static quality is > patterned.. I have the fundamental division of Value to be unpatterned and > patterned. [djh] Dynamic Quality isn't just unpatterned - chaos is unpatterned - is that Dynamic Quality? I think that you create chaos by exclusively valuing DQ. Your lack of distinction between chaos and DQ here confirms this thought more… Dynamic Quality isn't anything - including unpatterned. > [Marsha] > I do appreciate the static nature of patterns, as I state in my definition: > static patterns of value pragmatically tend to persist and change within a > stable, predictable pattern. [djh] Do static patterns fundamentally change or do they fundamentally stay the same? In other words - without Dynamic Quality - do static patterns change? No. Static patterns are as their name suggests - are static. "Static morality is full of heroes and villains, loves and hatreds, carrots and sticks. Its values don't change by themselves. Unless they are altered by Dynamic Quality they say the same thing year after year. Sometimes they say it more loudly, sometimes more softly, but the message is always the same." So to say, as you do, that static patterns tend to 'persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern' is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. This tells us nothing about the nature of static patterns other than the fact that 'things move'. "Unfortunately “static” and “Dynamic” have a meaning in physics that refers to space and time and motion and this can be confused with the static and Dynamic of the MOQ." Sadly your explanation of static patterns only adds to this confusion. >> [djh] >> "Static morality is full of heroes and villains, loves and hatreds, carrots >> and sticks. Its values don't change by themselves.. they say the same thing >> year after year. Sometimes they say it more loudly, sometimes more softly, >> but the message is always the same." > [Marsha] > I'll complete the quote with the rest of the paragraph: > "Unless they are altered by Dynamic Quality they say the same thing year > after year. Sometimes they say it more loudly, sometimes more softly, but the > message is always the same." > I might agree that DQ can be considered that which changes static patterns. [djh] You *might* agree? DQ is the only thing which changes static pattern. Without Dynamic Quality there is no change to static patterns. But heaven forbid Lucy should ever say something as fixed and static and categorical as 'I agree'. 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
