Greetings David, On Aug 3, 2013, at 11:22 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [Marsha] >> You wrote "With such a definition what Marsha thinks she has done is capture >> DQ in her definition of static quality." No, I never thought to include DQ >> in my definition of static patterns of value. I have maintained that >> Dynamic Quality (unpatterned) is basically "indivisible, undefinable & >> unknowable" and is best approached by: not this, not that. > > [djh] > I have no objection to your definition of Dynamic Quality. I know that you > can see the value of this undefined quality quite well. Then suggesting that I was trying to "capture DQ in her [my] definition of static quality" was a misrepresentation. I am very tired of your misrepresentations. > As I've said.. I take issue with your definition of static patterns of value. > It muddys the distinction between it and Dynamic Quality. Is your > definition still the following? > > "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 categorised 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." > > If so, this is an ugly definition as it blurs the clear [Context 2] > intellectual line between patterns and Dynamic Quality. For instance, you > use phrases like "impermanent and ever-changing" and "have no independent, > inherent existence". These two phrases in particular relate to the > epistemological insights found from a Context 1 perspective. But as Paul's > paper points out, there is a whole other ontological context of the MOQ which > makes the assumption that static patterns of value exist before(independent > of us) thinking about them. It is from this context that we can actually > begin to discuss metaphysics - for without such an assumption we can never > really intellectually talk about anything. As I've stated previously - the > very nature of an intellectual pattern is that we assume that something > occurred before we think about or manipulate it. > > "Intellectuality occurs when these customs as well as biological and > inorganic patterns are designated with a sign that stands for them and these > signs are manipulated independently of the patterns they stand for. " Paul Turner has presented a two-view thesis concerning the development of RMP's work. I respect his effort, but it has not been presented as an absolute. If Paul Turner wants to explain, discuss, defend, answer questions or make suggestions regarding his paper, I am sure he can capably do so. I am not going to discuss your interpretation of Paul's interpretation of RMP's work. I am not yet familiar enough with his paper to debate such issues. - If you think my definition of static patterns of value is "ugly," I suggest you do not adopt it. I am interested in the nature of static value more from an experiential point-of-view rather than a position of pretending or assuming. That would be direct experience gained from the practice of meditation and mindfulness. The intellectual level is not open for discussion, at least not to me, and as it stands it has no precise definition. Your statement "... the very nature of an intellectual pattern is that we assume that something occurred before we think about or manipulate it" seems also to be an intellectual pattern. You have an intellectual pattern defining the nature of all the MoQ's intellectual patterns? Hmmmm, I don't think I can accept such reasoning. I accept that the world (reality) is nothing but value: unpatterned value and patterned value. 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
