Sorry Ron, I have no idea what you talking about.
Marsha On Sep 20, 2013, at 12:08 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
