On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:53 AM, David Harding wrote:
>> [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.
First, when I do a search on the quote you offered ("I don't care what you
think.") I didn't get one hit, and you of course did not offer any examples or
direct references. Second, it's that "from acertain perspective" that is
suspect, especially generalizing out of thin air.
>> [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.
It is 'static patterns are of processes (events) that are ever-changing', and
they 'pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable
pattern." I do not "like" dogma. I do "like" that intellectual patterns can
be evaluated. I do not "like" that you project what you think I like and don't
like.
> "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...
All quotes are taken out of some 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*.
I have no problem with seeking the highest quality intellectual explanation.
Euclidian geometry offer the best explanation in one context but not in
another. I have no problem with seeking. I just don't assume there is one
best explanation. That seems to be sneaking one truth in by the back door.
> 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.
Though I asked, you never did explain what 'fundamentally static nature of
static patterns' means. Static patterns, as they pragmatically tend to
persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern, makes it quite
possible to evaluate them. But because they are also constantly changing, it
makes it more important to consider the value of the circumstances (context).
>> [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 you're using chaos as havoc. How could the unpatterned be anything?
It isn't.
> I think that you create chaos by exclusively valuing DQ.
I value static patterns of value too. I am a static girl living in a static
world. I do appreciate that.
> Your lack of distinction between chaos and DQ here confirms this thought
> more… Dynamic Quality isn't anything - including unpatterned.
I don't consider DQ as chaos, and I don't consider chaos as unpatterned. Your
conflating Dynamic Quality with anything confirms your confusion.
Unpatterned: not patterned, as in not this, not that. Your use of the term
'chaos' is far more egregious.
>> [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.
There is no "without Dynamic Quality". The fundamental nature of static
quality is Dynamic Quality. Static patterns are static in the sense that they
tend persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.
> "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."
Nice that you decided to include the entire quote...
> 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'.
Oh are you asking for my complete definition:
--- Static patterns of value are repetitive processes (multiple events),
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:
intellectual,
social,
biological,
and inorganic.
Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns.
Patterns have no independent,
inherent existence. ---
>
> "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."
It's all analogy bumping up against each other. There is nothing pure. Better
to face that. RMP didn't invent the world 'Quality' or 'Value", but he did
introduce a unique way of viewing the world. - I assume we all do the best we
can.
> Sadly your explanation of static patterns only adds to this confusion.
Your opinion. It might be that you are too dogmatic. It doesn't confuse me
one bit. But I will keep working on a better explanations.
>>> [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'.
OMG, the price for thinking something different than the herd is to be labeled
'Lucy'. I've been called worse. - Sorry to be so guarded, but I agreed a
long time ago when I stated that the fundamental nature of static quality is
Dynamic Quality. I think this is what is meant in the Heart Sutra when it
states that "form is emptiness, emptiness is form." Static patterns are
projection, projection projection...
Marsha
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
