(apologies for lateness - busy with other things unfortunately) > [djh] > Call me crazy Arlo but I actually enjoy philosophical discussion - including > disagreement! > > [Arlo] > Disagreement can be productive, but at a certain point when you're just going > in circles, its time to call it and move on. I'll respond to the few points, > but otherwise I'd just be repeating things I've already said.
[djh] Repeating what you've already said comes with the territory doesn't it? Over time though, as we speak about this stuff our understanding of it and of others understanding of the MOQ improves as well.. > [djh] > Here's possibly a great source of the confusion - I'm not calling one context > 'Dynamic' and the other context 'static'. Both contexts are static quality > and intellectually describe the epistemological and ontological basis of the > MOQ. > > [Arlo] > Okay. This is repeating what I had just said, so I take this as agreement. [djh] Trouble is Arlo, I've never said anything otherwise. A misunderstanding is a natural part of any philosophical discussion. Now that you see that I'm saying something very similar to what you're saying - I call that progress. How is this going around in circles? > [djh] > What I'm saying is that from context one - the thing which is most valuable > is Dynamic Quality and from context two - static quality. Paul pretty much > says the same thing himself.. > > [Arlo] > No. The thing that is most valuable in each 'context' is the RELATIONSHIP > between the Dynamic and static. Static quality is just as important in > context one as it is in context two, otherwise that mechanic, the analogue > used throughout ZMM, would never be able to repair his motorcycle. [djh] Context one is about the relationship between static quality and Dynamic Quality - focusing on Dynamic Quality as the generator of static quality. You can shout 'relationship' all you want Arlo but a relationship between two things is one of value. There is no relationship before value - the values create the relationship. I'll repeat again that I'm not claiming there is no static quality in either context as your example of a mechanic above implies. But to say that two things are equally important or valuable and yet are still different things is wrong. If two things are equally valuable then we would have no way of distinguishing between them because they would be the same thing... Anyway - to repeat - the first context is epistemologically about how Dynamic Quality is the generator of everything we know. If we are interested in epistemology then this indicates that we are interested in the intellectual value of knowing where our knowledge comes from. In other words both Paul Turner 'contexts' are about what is important intellectually. Paul even says as much in his paper.. "However, despite the close alignment of context (2) and conventional truth, context (1) and the ultimate truth of the “world of the buddhas”(DQ) are not the same, although closely related. Context (1) is more like an exposition of the relationship between the two truths expressed in terms of value. It is the first half of the circle, covered in ZMM, where the perspective is one which sees the everyday world of the static mythos for what it is, and from where it is generated, yet is not outside of it. The perspective of the buddhas, the 180 degree top of the circle, is outside of any mythos and any fixed context." In other-words - this first 'context' is different to the actual experience of Dynamic Quality in that it is primarily interested in the intellectual change in perspective brought about by understanding DQ as the creator of all things. > [Arlo] > What context one does is change the relationship between [Dynamic] Quality > and [subjects and objects] static quality. In context two, Dynamic Quality is > just as important as it is in context one, otherwise the entire evolutionary > hierarchy would collapse. What context two does is change the relationship > between Dynamic Quality and [its wake] static quality. > > By implying a privilege in either context, you completely miss the relevance > of each and negate the necessary synthesis between the two. [djh] What you call privilege I call value but your examples are of a situation which I'm not suggesting. Just because one thing is more valuable than something else doesn't imply that the lesser thing doesn't exist or has no value. > [djh] > What is most valuable in each context? That's why I harp on. > > [Arlo] > I've answered this, but I have no doubt you'll continue to harp on. ;-) [djh] Of course I'll harp on… with an open mind - that's the point of this place! I get that philosophical discussion is extremely frustrating and difficult and repetitive and painful. But like everything it can also be very rewarding. Being able to openly discuss the MOQ doesn't hurt either! 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
