Ron,
On Sep 12, 2013, at 9:12 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: 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. Marsha: It is a statement made by RMP, and there is nothing inflammatory in the statement. [Ron] 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. Marsha: It is RMP's statement, none the less. I say investigate the Vedic answer. [Ron] 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. Marsha: I understand what you've written, but I do not understand the basis for your thinking it, and I see no value in trying to guess. [Ron] 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? Marsha: I have no idea what you are getting at. [Ron] 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. Marsha: ??? [Ron] 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. Marsha: Sorry there seems to be too many hidden assumptions left out of your post for me to make sense of it. The only thing I might offer to negate the charge of nihilism is that static quality is not annihilated. Static quality is conventionally real. 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
