Marsha: Here is how I represented the paragraph, with RMP quotes, for clarification:
1. I accept the MoQ's idea that the world is nothing but value. "The Metaphysics of Quality's central idea that the world is nothing but value is not part of any philosophic tradition that I know of." - RMP Marsha: There was nothing wrong with the wording of my statement. [Ron] Nothing wrong with the wording, no, but how you use that statement out of context to support your own case is inconsistant with RMP's claim that MoQ follows in the tradition of Pragmatism. --- Marsha : 2. From a Dynamic Quality (unpatterened) view nothing is right or wrong, better or worse. Changed to: 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 Marsha: Please note that it is RMP using "Not this, not that" and reaffirming that Dynamic Quality should be undefined. [Ron] Within the context of dialectical opposition not within the context of its function within the metaphysic. You use this quote as with the others to support your assertion that all value judgements are relative to the individual experience. for example; --- Marsha: 3. From the static (patterned) view a pattern exist because it is useful. [Ron] A pattern exists because it is valued, this includes aestetics ie; beauty, good, better not merely useful. --- Marsha: 4. I also accept that on the static (conventional) level *individual judgements* of what's bad or good may differ because of different static pattern histories and differences in the present dynamic conditions. [Ron] RMP disagrees, no one could verify the hot stove by your interpretation therefore RMP's explanation could not rightly say that it is MORE EMPIRICAL than objective science, and contradict the statement he makes about why anyone can verify that they are in a lo-quality situation, you know what is good or bad BEFORE you intellecually understand it. ALL will agree to the lo-quality situation of sitting on a hot stove. Dave Buchanan said it best: > "Any person of any philosophic persuasion who sits on a hot stove will verify > without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an undeniably > low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is negative. This > low quality is not just a vague, wooly-headed, crypto-religious, metaphysical > abstraction. It is an experience." (LILA) > > "One might be unmoved by arguments about the effects of hot stoves on human > flesh but experience will keep one honest because there's no arguing with > reality. The one who refuses to listen to those static warnings will > certainly get burned. Concepts lead us through experience well or badly and > that's all that real or true can ever mean within the pragmatics of the MOQ. > The MOQ rejects the correspondence theory of truth precisely because it > construes truth as a representation of the "real" structure of reality. In > the MOQ, reality is not a structure or entity of any kind but rather the > ongoing process of experience itself. This reality is indefinite, an > ever-changing flux, an aesthetic continuum, undefined yet always charged with > value, either positive or negative, rightness or wrongness. > > And, as the hot stove example shows, we can even act on this value even > before we have a chance to think about it. We respond to reality immediately > all the time. This is not some special mountain-top experience or even a > particular meditative disciple. It the immediate of flux of life, direct > everyday experience. As the native American mystics show, there's no need to > make a big fuss about or turn it into some exotic esoterica. Zen ain't > supposed to be fancy either, as in "just fixing," and both of these > associations are consistent with the MOQ non-theoretical starting point: > experience as such. " --- Marsha: Within this post, I cannot identify your specific complaints. It cannot be that I used "neti, neti" because it was used by RMP in the quote I provided. How does quoting RMP's statement that Dynamic Quality should be undefined and recommending meditation as a method for obtaining direct experience represent solipsistic subjectivism? Your disease/cure complaint is too abstract; the MoQ is a carefully presented theory not a pill, and SOM is not merely a disease to be destroyed. I would be happy to respond to specific complaints if you make them clear and provide specific evidence within a properly cited context. [Ron] The complaints mostly concern you using those quotes out of context to support your preffered point of view that all value judgement (including what is an accurate interpetation of Pirsigs work) is relative to the individual experience and can not be judged better or worse than any other interpretation. The problem is making use of those quotes in this context in Pirsigs metaphysic, there are several contradictions and serious philosophical consequences if those quotes were held to the meaning and context you hold them to mean. This causes me to question the validity of holding that kind of interpretation as true and accurate of Pirsigs work as it just does not fit or work with a large portion of the metaphysical explanation it is supposed to supply. Reason #1 why I think you are mistaken in holding these quotes to posess the meaning you provide. To break it down: 1. RMP states (contrary to your claims) that dynamic quality can be verfied "undeniably" by "Any person of any philosophic persuasion" "quality is not just a vague, wooly-headed, crypto-religious, metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience." (LILA) Therefore DQ can NOT be relative when "ANY person" can VERIFY it's QUALITY! Value judgements certainly DO apply to dynamic quality. In conclusion, when you say: "Value judgements, like *right or wrong* and *better or worse* do not apply to Dynamic Quality" then supply the neti-neti quote from Pirsig to support it, you are criticized for using a quote out of context to support the meaning of a term that conflicts with the remaining body of work. You do this mostly to defend your rhetorical style of arguementation more than being concerned with the consistancy or accuracy of Robert Pirsigs work, which is the chief and sole topic of conversation (atleast to my understanding of the charter rules) if I am not mistaken. .. The philosophic question is: If I interpreted RMP's work as advocating rape and torture and argued that he did, am I still discussing MoQ? am I violating charter rules or not? .. 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
