dmb, I am still waiting for you to present reasons why my quoting RMP's statement that Dynamic Quality should be undefined and using "not this, not that" (neti, neti), and recommending meditation as a method for obtaining direct experience represent solipsistic subjectivism?
Marsha On Sep 19, 2013, at 1:42 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: dmb, First let me state that I am glad to hear from you after the horrific damage reports coming out of Colorado. I was worried. Now back to business. Here is the original statement which initiated dmb's complaint: Re: [MD] Questions for Marsha. On Sep 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, MarshaV wrote: [djh] Logical consistency is better than vagueness and incoherence. Marsha: Without standards, these are all relative concepts, and that's fine by me, but don't hit me over the head with your relative opinions. [djh] Why are you removing the standard of Quality? Quality exists. If something is good it is good. End of story. Or do you disagree with this? Marsha: I accept the MoQ's idea that the world is nothing but value. From a Dynamic Quality (unpatterened) view nothing is right or wrong, better or worse. From the static (patterned) view a pattern exist because it is useful. I also accept that on the static (conventional) level *individual judgements* of what's bad or good will differ because of different static pattern histories and differences in the present dynamic conditions. ------------- 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. --- 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. --- 3. From the static (patterned) view a pattern exist because it is useful. --- 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. --- 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. Marsha On Sep 18, 2013, at 3:18 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > In the "Questions for Marsha" thread, Arlo said to Ron: > > Marsha's "neti neti" is another way of saying "undefined". No one disputes > this. No one has said Dynamic Quality is definable. [...] So once we've > left the meditative trance on the mountaintop, once we're immersed in a > metaphysical dialogue, meaning is important. Once we call that undefined > 'neti neti' by the term "Quality" or "Dynamic Quality" or "Value" or > "Experience", we are pointing to something salient and meaningful. Seeing > this primary undefined as Quality/value is the root of all Pirsig's > subsequent writings. It 'points to' meaning, even if 'definition' is > impossible. As with you, Ron, I'm not sure what sense it makes to suggest > that 'not this, not that' is the evolutionary force. All this does is say "we > can't define the evolutionary force". Hell, even the attribute "evolutionary" > points to meaning, as does "force". To be genuine, Marsha would have to > object to Pirsig referring to the undefined as "Quality" as even this > violates the 'neti, neti' by assigning > specific meaning to an undefinable. > > > dmb says: > > Yea, I guess everybody knows that DQ can't be defined. The problem is that > Marsha is constantly invoking this indefinability without understanding what > it actually means. It's important to understand WHY it can't be defined and > HOW Pirsig's metaphysics can be built around DQ despite its ineffability. > You probably don't need an explanation, Arlo, but let me put one on the table > for anyone who's interested in the MOQ and/or not interested in nihilistic > relativism. > > One way to approach this is to recall the question that started the > metaphysical ball rolling in the first place. Pirsig was just trying to teach > some teenagers how to write but a faculty asked him if undefined quality is > subjective or objective. Well, that's exactly where the answer would be > "neither this nor that". Subject-Object metaphysics says it has to be one or > the other and that the former isn't really real. Within SOM, quality is > usually considered to be "just" subjective. > > As we can see, I think, Marsha's half-baked invocations of DQ's > indefinability and constantly citing her own meditative experience has the > effective of turning the MOQ into some kind of solipsistic subjectivism. Thus > the cure is re-infected with the disease; the MOQ is converted back into the > worst kind of SOMism. This not only introduces the relativism and the > "psychic solitary confinement" of SOM but it also turns Quality back into > that whimsical and capricious "whatever you like". The MOQ is not just > whatever you like. It is static, knowable, divisible, definable and > intelligible, as any metaphysic must be. And that's what's really in dispute. > Basically, Marsha cannot accept the idea that she, or anyone else, can be > right or wrong about metaphysics. Sigh. So static patterns aren't necessarily > real or true and DQ is just not this and not that. Nothing is real and > nothing is right or wrong. > > > Snip 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
