(Adrie) ---------------------
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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe so that speaking from context 1 about context two,or speaking from context 2 about context one, and move in the intermediate zone's to speak from both contexts regarding the same subjects at different times, to a differing audience, is the birth certificate of Mr Turners explanation. Reading this certificate will make thing clear. Adrie 2013/9/13 X Acto <[email protected]> > > > > 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 > -- parser 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
