From LILA:
" Quality was value."
Marsha says:
2. Value judgements, like *right or wrong* and *better or worse* do not apply
to Dynamic Quality.
"... my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative was not a wise
statement, since it constitutes a limitation or partial definition of Dynamic
Quality. Whenever one talks about Dynamic Quality someone else can take
whatever is said and make a static pattern out of it and then dialectically
oppose that pattern. The best answer to the question, “What is Dynamic
Quality?” is the ancient Vedic one——“Not this, not that.”"
- RMP
Not this, not that!!!
[Ron]
I remember being here with Dan, and he employed the same statement in this
situation. And in the same
inflammitory manner.
This has been a problem.
Because if we adopt this statement as true in regard what Bob means about
dynamic quality then the rest
of his project falls into contradiction and consequently falls apart. I say
this because the whole aim and meaning
is to improve the human situation, it also destroys the whole rhetorical
arguement behind its meaning in regard
to evolution. What drives evolution is "not this, not that". This adds nothing
to the explanation. Not to mention
the destruction of the explanation of morals, plus as an added consequence it
renders the term "dynamic quality"
meaningless in the metaphysic, it loses all explanitory power.
So, it simply can not be what he means in regard to his metaphysic, I suggest
we read more carefully and take a harder
look at what he is responding to in this statement and that is SoM's use of
"dialectical opposition".
I say we try it.
Let us say for instance that dynamic quality is best known as "undefined
betterness" a feeling we get .
The dialectical opposition is "badness" how does this explain the bad in
experience? The explanation
is that differering levels of "undefined betterness" conflict with each other
(ie; 4 levels of evolution explanation)
"the response of an organism to its evironment".
so far so good..what could be the problem?
What then is Bob's meaning in regard to the question "what IS dynamic quality?"
it could only refer to the rhetorical
chess game with subject object metaphysics and I think DmB is on to it when he
suggests that applying this statement
to the MoQ is to "mistake the cure for the disease" in other words, the
statement is being mis-applied, the result
is nihlism.
Now, after understanding Stamos, the nihlist will not be convinced with a
rational explanation because their temperment
will not allow them to admit responsibility in their lives so just the naked
quote is enough to support their point of view regardless
of whether or not it is rationally consistant and coherent as long at it
matches their own experience and that is valueless-ness
"not this not that".
An interesting theory, it does seem to hold some water.
..
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
