Re: [MD] Step one once again
Interesting, I was thinking about two related things the other day - what someone called 'vibrational tuning' theory, and energy gaining when you add this dissipation-driven adaptive organization theory of England's .. entropy = movement to dissipation can be seen as increase in complexity big bang = one unified meta-sized supply of energy begins by exploding -the process has begun and all energy must eventually dissipate -all existence is the movement from a unified 'One' to Infinite complexity (aka: nothingness) -this easily can be explained by (/explain a) vibrational frequency-tuning model/theory -everything is composed from the various movements of energy (even vibrating strings, or ToE could fit here; see:quantum theory) -on Earth, the circumstances require its expenditure via the Sun (progression so far) ?One? bang energies particles stardust(see Sagan ?quote) more complex solar systems 'Earth soup' particles resonate w/ driving force(atoms in hot bath arrange self in response to electromagnetic frequency) hot bath atoms, per chance, become cheap and efficient building block aka: 'the great self-replicators'(see Darwin/Dawkins) -So, plants absorb sun release light/gas; animals absorb plants release movement ( gas); humans / animals become social (structural resources benefits/release violence?;see E.O.Wilson); humans develop intelligence in order to gain advantage over animals (develop abstract future Visions, make particular Goals that lead to enacting those visions by affecting the environment around us, develop Plans to specify how to achieve those goals, enact Actions as the parts of the plans) (what do we release? cognitive resources in the form of food-energy?) .Anyway, thats the way I see it. Did I get anything wrong? I'm just finishing up a paper regarding old visual system models, and I managed to develop the entire research process around Pirsigian theory - and everything fit perfectly! (Im thinking if it comes out decent, and Im not delusional, that I can share it here can I do that? would anyone be interested? it really was like weeks worth of literature review and sleepless nights, lol the paper wasnt even that long I really just did all this work for my (our?) own benefit On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: All (or those of you that have read and understand LILA) For the understanding of the pattern of 4 levels and how they differ I found an interesting article. This is about step one, the step between level one and two, the inorganic, into the organic. http://www.businessinsider.com/groundbreaking-idea-of-lifes-origin-2014-12?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/groundbreaking-idea-of-lifes-origin-2014-12?IR=T Step zero, into level one, a static pattern form the void or Q: The moral for anything to exist as matter handles quantum energy levels, nuclear stability and molecular chemistry, physical interaction, mechanical standards and so on. Life-time: billions of years. Step one: from inorganic into organic where patterns are self-reproduced and by thus given advantage over inorganic patterns that not reproduce. Statistic life-time is shorter, millions of years, but the number can grow. Organic patterns are using inorganic patterns but in another way for their own purpose causing conflicts between inorganic and organic patterns. Step two: from the organic into the social where organic patterns find shared attention which results in an advantage over organic patterns that doesn’t cooperate. Social patterns are mostly sexually reproduced which results in varaiations of DNA inside a social pattern with variable immunity to germs and differnet roles in th egroup, man/woman, leader/soldier, smart/dumb, MOQer/NonMOQer etc… Social patterns are using organic patterns but for their own benefit which causes tensions between organic and social urges. Estimated life-time: Thousands of years, Step three: Still a white spot at the MOQ-globe. Where patterns of social interest deploy into scientific status independent from social powers, or what. Life -time: 1-200 years? Puns mostly does work just once. to be continued… Jan-Anders http://www.businessinsider.com/groundbreaking-idea-of-lifes-origin-2014-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/groundbreaking-idea-of-lifes-origin-2014-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/groundbreaking-idea-of-lifes-origin-2014-12 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Dave, On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:39 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: Dan said: I don't know, Dave. I think there are observations being made that non-DNA based lifeforms are possible: Synthetic biologists have discovered that six other molecules can could store genetic information and pass it on. A host of alternative nucleic acids have been made in labs over the years, but no one has made them work like DNA. Until now, everyone thought we were limited to RNA and DNA. ...The finding is a proof of principle that life needn't be based on DNA and RNA. dmb says: Hmmm. This certainly would defy the assertion that life MUST be based on DNA or the idea that non-DNA forms of life are impossible. But there is one major problem, Dan. I didn't says that it's impossible and I don't think it's impossible either. In fact, I said it was a plausible idea. It seems to me that non-DNA life forms would be greeted as an exciting discovery. Sci-Fi writers and real scientists have been dreaming about it for a while. BUT these alternative life forms are still just speculations, abstract patterns that lots of people desperately want to see it - but nobody ever has. People are looking for such a fact, even trying to conjure it up, and they still can't find it. Dan: Yes, and I agree. My point was more along the lines of the static filter preventing Phaedrus from seeing the flashing green sun. It would appear to me that any new discovery--like the green sun or life based on XNA--would be filtered out. I think that static filter blindness might arise in the looking even if we don't recognize it as happening, even if we're actively looking for something we want to see. Wanting to see something--even trying to see it--and being told it exists are not to be taken as the same. I may want to see little green fairies dancing in the moonlight--I might go out night after night searching for them--but no matter how I look I doubt I'll ever see it. I'm not saying it's impossible but pretty unlikely. On the other hand, seeing something like the flash of a green sun is a verifiable experience that anyone told to see will experience even if they have never witnessed such an event before. That's not to say it is an objectively verifiable experience, however. There is a nuance here that is easily overlooked. dmb: If such an alternative life form appeared from the sky or was created in a lab, I think the news would be on the front page of every paper in the world, etc.. To say there is presently no empirical evidence is very different from saying that it's impossible. I'm only saying that there is no known evidence. And the point of this was originally aimed at Ian, who claimed that the MOQ should include these alternative life forms. Since no such thing exists (as far as we know), I thought it was rather silly to insist on their inclusion in the MOQ's levels. Dan: Again, I agree. It would be like including all speculative phenomena in the MOQ, which since it is pure empiricism makes no sense. dmb: Don't the levels just divide what's in an ideal encyclopedia, rather than carving up a pre-exisiting physical universe? I mean, isn't there a subtle switch back into scientific objectivity in these assertions about what may or may not exist in the unobserved universe? I think so. Dan: Well, yes, that's what I was trying to tease out with my reference to the static filter that prevents us from seeing that which we aren't familiar with. Aren't all new scientific discoveries the unobserved made known? We see references to 'new' species being discovered--sometimes in the plain light of day--but are they really new? How would we know if they've never been observed before? Aren't we dealing instead with multiple definitions of 'new'? Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Thanks Horse, I wasn't being contentious - the universe is big (in time and space) so no reason to exclude any forms of life beyond our myopic ken, in a truly metaphysical view - Not just organic in the well known carbon-based / DNA-based sense , but organic as in like a (living) organism. (Obviously in current human dictionaries - the definitions of organic are recursive on what makes life organic - hence good and useful - if they weren't you'd need to be a metaphysical philosopher to understand their bootstrapping.) Life - defined something like (Andre?) is suggesting - about self-perpetuating replication, over enough cycles for evolutionary speciation opportunities perhaps, etc (*). (Whatever the physical informational medium.) In the same way as AI is real when the A becomes (empirical) reality. A-Life is real when the A becomes reality. But virtual or artificial now, easily conceivable, predictable, etc. (*) And whatever life definition we choose, the boundaries will be blurred around self-sustaining, when we have co-evolved species like viruses - which maybe can't survive without their co-evolved host, or computer generated artefacts when the power is switched-off, etc ... but if it quacks like a duck ... etc. [Viruses are alive because of their extended phenotype, etc. We need to careful not to limit ourselves to simple patterns in a single medium, but level-crossing-patterns in level-crossing-patterns, etc. - a flock of starlings is alive, because each individual starling is, even though the relative position of two starlings is a displacement in physical (ie dead) space - no two flock formations literally recur, but their quality, their nature does.] Ian On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote: Hi Dave At the risk of misinterpreting what Ian's saying, I think what he means is that, as a generalisation, 'life' is the next step up from 'matter'! What we know as life is based around the double helix and involves DNA, genes, proteins etc. but this is only one possible way that life may have emerged. It's a big universe and we only have a sample of one at the present time so to say that life = DNA is a big step in the wrong direction cos we just don't know about other ways in which life may come about. The MoQ makes a huge (and IMO correct) generalisation that organic/biological patterns follow on from inorganic patterns. Terrestrial life is a specific instance of biological patterns of value - there may be other specific instances in other parts of the universe. What those instances should follow though, if the MoQ is correct, is that they share the same patterns of reproduction, feeding etc. that Pirsig points out in his work. Closer to home, it may be that at some point there will be other forms of life that exist but that their environment and context will be different. Artificial (or virtual) realities could well contain life (and may already) - it just depends on how you want to define and identify it. A metaphysics needs to be a generalisation that can be applied to all situations and contexts regardless of specifics - the specifics should conform to the general theory of what constitutes what is and isn't 'real'. Cheers Horse On 01/02/2014 23:50, david wrote: Ian said: The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history. Andre replied: Can you enlighten us with your knowledge of life that is not 'necessarily organic life' i.e. DNA 'based' life? Just interested in the non-obvious. dmb says: I was wondering about Ian's strange claim too. Since organic means of life, related to life, derived from living matter, it's hard to imagine what non-organic life would mean. DNA-based life isn't just the most obvious kind, I think, but rather the only kind we know of. Isn't that why a virus is considered a borderline case, because it only lives by highjacking the DNA of more proper organisms? In any case, I can only wonder what Ian is referring to. 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 -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. -- Frank Zappa --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com 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:
Re: [MD] Step one
Dan said: I don't know, Dave. I think there are observations being made that non-DNA based lifeforms are possible: Synthetic biologists have discovered that six other molecules can could store genetic information and pass it on. A host of alternative nucleic acids have been made in labs over the years, but no one has made them work like DNA. Until now, everyone thought we were limited to RNA and DNA. ...The finding is a proof of principle that life needn't be based on DNA and RNA. dmb says: Hmmm. This certainly would defy the assertion that life MUST be based on DNA or the idea that non-DNA forms of life are impossible. But there is one major problem, Dan. I didn't says that it's impossible and I don't think it's impossible either. In fact, I said it was a plausible idea. It seems to me that non-DNA life forms would be greeted as an exciting discovery. Sci-Fi writers and real scientists have been dreaming about it for a while. BUT these alternative life forms are still just speculations, abstract patterns that lots of people desperately want to see it - but nobody ever has. People are looking for such a fact, even trying to conjure it up, and they still can't find it. If such an alternative life form appeared from the sky or was created in a lab, I think the news would be on the front page of every paper in the world, etc.. To say there is presently no empirical evidence is very different from saying that it's impossible. I'm only saying that there is no known evidence. And the point of this was originally aimed at Ian, who claimed that the MOQ should include these alternative life forms. Since no such thing exists (as far as we know), I thought it was rather silly to insist on their inclusion in the MOQ's levels. Don't the levels just divide what's in an ideal encyclopedia, rather than carving up a pre-exisiting physical universe? I mean, isn't there a subtle switch back into scientific objectivity in these assertions about what may or may not exist in the unobserved universe? I think so. 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Horse said to dmb: I agree with much of what you say but it's still very important to remember that DNA-based life is no more than one possible way for life to exist and that it involves an environment and a context. Not having experienced something (or maybe mis-interpreting something that we do experience) should not blind us to the probability that it exists. Isn't this part of the 'Cleveland Harbor Effect'? dmb says: I think the lesson of the Cleveland Harbor Effect is other way around. It was a parable for students of scientific objectivity, he says. To say he rejected the observation and followed the chart is to say to ignored the actual experience because of what he thought. What he thought acted as a static filter, shutting out all information that did not fit. (This is good description of what's known as confirmation bias.) The idea of life that's not DNA-based is not exactly comparable, because there are no observations or experiences being ignored. The idea, I think, is only based on extrapolating upon the biological charts we already have. I mean, nothing like that has been observed. It's reasonable and I don't think there is any ideological resistance to it but it is pure speculation, a plausible abstraction for which there is no empirical evidence. As far as I know, anyway. The Cleveland Harbor Effect is about throwing out NEW facts when they don't fit with the intellectual patterns. When a new fact comes in that does not fit the pattern we don’t throw out the pattern. We throw out the fact. Here, I think, facts are empirical reality while the patterns are conceptual (and for a radical empiricist like Pirsig empirical reality always comes first and concepts are always secondary). It seems to me that non-DNA life forms would be greeted as an exciting discovery. Sci-Fi writers and real scientists have been dreaming about it for a while. If a contradictory fact has to keep hammering and hammering and hammering, sometimes for centuries, before maybe one or two people will see it, then alternative life forms would be something like the opposite. It's an abstract pattern that keeps hammering and hammering and lots of people desperately want to see it - but nobody ever has. 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
Re: [MD] Step one
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:28 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: Horse said to dmb: I agree with much of what you say but it's still very important to remember that DNA-based life is no more than one possible way for life to exist and that it involves an environment and a context. Not having experienced something (or maybe mis-interpreting something that we do experience) should not blind us to the probability that it exists. Isn't this part of the 'Cleveland Harbor Effect'? dmb says: I think the lesson of the Cleveland Harbor Effect is other way around. It was a parable for students of scientific objectivity, he says. To say he rejected the observation and followed the chart is to say to ignored the actual experience because of what he thought. What he thought acted as a static filter, shutting out all information that did not fit. (This is good description of what's known as confirmation bias.) The idea of life that's not DNA-based is not exactly comparable, because there are no observations or experiences being ignored. The idea, I think, is only based on extrapolating upon the biological charts we already have. I mean, nothing like that has been observed. It's reasonable and I don't think there is any ideological resistance to it but it is pure speculation, a plausible abstraction for which there is no empirical evidence. As far as I know, anyway. [Dan] I don't know, Dave. I think there are observations being made that non-DNA based lifeforms are possible: Synthetic biologists have discovered that six other molecules can could store genetic information and pass it on. A host of alternative nucleic acids have been made in labs over the years, but no one has made them work like DNA. Until now, everyone thought we were limited to RNA and DNA. This is the first time artificial molecules have been made to pass genes on to their descendants. The finding is a proof of principle that life needn't be based on DNA and RNA. [www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/04/extraterrestrial-life-may-not-be-based-on-dna-or-rna-new-research-todays-most-popular.html] Dan comments: Note the words: Until now, everyone thought we were limited to RNA and DNA. This is very similar to what Phaedrus says about the Cleveland Harbor Effect: When Phaedrus started to read yachting literature he ran across a description of the green flash of the sun. What was that all about, he wondered. Why hadn't he seen it? He was sure he had never seen the green flash of the sun. Yet he must have seen it. But if he saw it, why didn't he see it? This static filter was the explanation. He didn't see the green flash because he'd never been told to see it. But then one day he read a book on yachting which said, in effect, to go see it. So he did. And he saw it. There was the sun, green as green can be, like a GO light on a downtown traffic semaphore. Yet all his life he had never seen it. The culture hadn't told him to so he hadn't seen it. If he hadn't read that book on yachting he was quite certain he would never have seen it. [Lila] This static filter is in place whether we recognize it or not. Phaedrus had never seen a green flash from the sun. He knew nothing about it. He wasn't told to go see it, until he read a book on yachting. And there it was! dmb: The Cleveland Harbor Effect is about throwing out NEW facts when they don't fit with the intellectual patterns. When a new fact comes in that does not fit the pattern we don't throw out the pattern. We throw out the fact. Here, I think, facts are empirical reality while the patterns are conceptual (and for a radical empiricist like Pirsig empirical reality always comes first and concepts are always secondary). It seems to me that non-DNA life forms would be greeted as an exciting discovery. Sci-Fi writers and real scientists have been dreaming about it for a while. If a contradictory fact has to keep hammering and hammering and hammering, sometimes for centuries, before maybe one or two people will see it, then alternative life forms would be something like the opposite. It's an abstract pattern that keeps hammering and hammering and lots of people desperately want to see it - but nobody ever has. Dan: It is possible that non-DNA based life forms are right under our noses and we've never seen them because we aren't told to see them. We could liken this to the research being done on the Higgs boson and the resulting expansion of the laws of physics that are bound to follow. Thanks, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Sent from my iPhone On Feb 9, 2014, at 1:28 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: Horse said to dmb: I agree with much of what you say but it's still very important to remember that DNA-based life is no more than one possible way for life to exist and that it involves an environment and a context. Not having experienced something (or maybe mis-interpreting something that we do experience) should not blind us to the probability that it exists. Isn't this part of the 'Cleveland Harbor Effect'? dmb says: I think the lesson of the Cleveland Harbor Effect is other way around. It was a parable for students of scientific objectivity, he says. To say he rejected the observation and followed the chart is to say to ignored the actual experience because of what he thought. What he thought acted as a static filter, shutting out all information that did not fit. (This is good description of what's known as confirmation bias.) The idea of life that's not DNA-based is not exactly comparable, because there are no observations or experiences being ignored. The idea, I think, is only based on extrapolating upon the biological charts we already have. I mean, nothing like that has been observed. It's reasonable and I don't think there is any ideological resistance to it but it is pure speculation, a plausible abstraction for which there is no empirical evidence. As far as I know, anyway. The Cleveland Harbor Effect is about throwing out NEW facts when they don't fit with the intellectual patterns. When a new fact comes in that does not fit the pattern we don’t throw out the pattern. We throw out the fact. Here, I think, facts are empirical reality while the patterns are conceptual (and for a radical empiricist like Pirsig empirical reality always comes first and concepts are always secondary). It seems to me that non-DNA life forms would be greeted as an exciting discovery. Sci-Fi writers and real scientists have been dreaming about it for a while. If a contradictory fact has to keep hammering and hammering and hammering, sometimes for centuries, before maybe one or two people will see it, then alternative life forms would be something like the opposite. It's an abstract pattern that keeps hammering and hammering and lots of people desperately want to see it - but nobody ever has. Ron: I think that is going to raise some Debate but I believe you hit it square With the Cleveland harbor metaphor, He rationalized explanations thereby Justifying the rejecting of the empirical facts. It has practicle Consequences in experience. However I sense some dispute in That a dialectical arguement regarding deduction inference and verification Not to mention imagination and intuition will be leveled on Your post. On this I can only agree that experience must inform our deductions inferences and intuitions Not the other way around. There is a difference between verifying a theory and justifying Belief, it's what seperates scientific Method from alien conspiracy theories, or Bigfoot hunts. . 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Hi Gents, (any Ladies?) In our work to refine the metaphysics of Quality I think we must use the element of time here. Actually, we are talking about step two, as step one should be the first step from where there where no Organic patterns at all, before the first change, into the moment after the very first change. A change implies the presence of time, just as an evolution implies some kind of order which is a kind of time management. RMP: I think it's better to say that time is a static intellectual concept that is one of the very first to emerge from Dynamic Quality. That keeps Dynamic Quality concept-free... The MOQ starts with the source of undifferentiated perception itself as the ultimate reality. The very first differentiation is probably `change`. The second one may be `before and after`. From this sense of `before and after` emerge more complex concepts of time. ... according to the Metaphysics of Quality, time and change did NOT act to evolve the static universe. Only Dynamic Quality did this. Time and change are primary concepts used to describe this evolution but they do not cause evolution any more than Newton's law of gravity causes the earth to stick together. (letter from ROBERT M. PIRSIG to Anthony McWatt, February 23rd, 1998) DNA, RNA or what effect from DQ we see here, RMP talks about the organic level as a level that is different from the inorganic level. One difference is that the superior level is using the lower level for its own purposes. A tree for example is using the magnetism between water molecules to pump it up into the top of the tree. I however think that the main difference between the levels is strongly dependant to time. Organic patterns are very stable by time. Atoms and molecules doesn't change very much by time. Hydrogen atoms are the same since Big Bang etc. Also, chemical reactions have an time order. Chemical reactions doesn't work backwards, thanks to The Laws of Thermodynamics... I think that the main difference between the inorganic and the organic level is related to time this way: As the inorganic patterns became more and more complex, their duration in time went the other way, the more complex structure the less duration. The solution that brought into the organic level is the self reproduction served to us by Dynamic Quality. Self reproduction overcomes the problem of depletion by age as new fresh younglings are made. Self reproduction in more than one copy of every original also brings in an economic advantage as viruses can spread in masses and find places where chances to survive is better. We should see the possibilities for a free choice to stay in the acid or move not only as an individual choice but as a species with large number of copies where the free choice is made by those who happen to be away from the acid. Mutations is also a new possibility as the reproductionary systems fails and some new versions show up to be more fit to the environment than others and Voila, inorganic evolution is here. Time and order is still a very high quality idea as depletion, reproduction and evolution by mutations is very hard to understand and explain without a correct, working, concept of time. Thanks to DQ, we have more brands of self reproducing vegetables than Motorcycles. Jan-Anders 7 feb 2014 x kl. 13.36 skrev Horse: Hi Dave I agree with much of what you say but it's still very important to remember that DNA-based life is no more than one possible way for life to exist and that it involves an environment and a context. Not having experienced something (or maybe mis-interpreting something that we do experience) should not blind us to the probability that it exists. Isn't this part of the 'Cleveland Harbor Effect'? Then he remembered the little “discrepancies” he had seen on the chart when he came in. When a buoy had a “wrong” number on it he presumed it had been changed since the chart was made. When a certain wall appeared that was not shown, he assumed it had been built recently or maybe he hadn’t come to it yet and he wasn’t quite where he thought he was. It never occurred to him to think he was in a whole different harbor! It was a parable for students of scientific objectivity. Wherever the chart disagreed with his observations he rejected the observation and followed the chart. Because of what his mind thought it knew, it had built up a static filter, an immune system, that was shutting out all information that did not fit. Seeing is not believing. Believing is seeing. If this were just an individual phenomenon it would not be so serious. But it is a huge cultural phenomenon too and it is very serious. We build up whole cultural intellectual patterns based on past “facts” which are extremely selective. When a new fact comes in that does not fit the pattern we don’t throw out the pattern. We throw out the fact. A contradictory fact has to keep
Re: [MD] Step one
Jan Anders, quote A tree for example is using the magnetism between water molecules to pump it up into the top of the tree. rootpressure osmotic pump transpirational pull http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpirational_pull#Transpirational_pull this is an aside off course Adrie 2014-02-08 14:20 GMT+01:00 Jan Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com: Hi Gents, (any Ladies?) In our work to refine the metaphysics of Quality I think we must use the element of time here. Actually, we are talking about step two, as step one should be the first step from where there where no Organic patterns at all, before the first change, into the moment after the very first change. A change implies the presence of time, just as an evolution implies some kind of order which is a kind of time management. RMP: I think it's better to say that time is a static intellectual concept that is one of the very first to emerge from Dynamic Quality. That keeps Dynamic Quality concept-free... The MOQ starts with the source of undifferentiated perception itself as the ultimate reality. The very first differentiation is probably `change`. The second one may be `before and after`. From this sense of `before and after` emerge more complex concepts of time. ... according to the Metaphysics of Quality, time and change did NOT act to evolve the static universe. Only Dynamic Quality did this. Time and change are primary concepts used to describe this evolution but they do not cause evolution any more than Newton's law of gravity causes the earth to stick together. (letter from ROBERT M. PIRSIG to Anthony McWatt, February 23rd, 1998) DNA, RNA or what effect from DQ we see here, RMP talks about the organic level as a level that is different from the inorganic level. One difference is that the superior level is using the lower level for its own purposes. A tree for example is using the magnetism between water molecules to pump it up into the top of the tree. I however think that the main difference between the levels is strongly dependant to time. Organic patterns are very stable by time. Atoms and molecules doesn't change very much by time. Hydrogen atoms are the same since Big Bang etc. Also, chemical reactions have an time order. Chemical reactions doesn't work backwards, thanks to The Laws of Thermodynamics... I think that the main difference between the inorganic and the organic level is related to time this way: As the inorganic patterns became more and more complex, their duration in time went the other way, the more complex structure the less duration. The solution that brought into the organic level is the self reproduction served to us by Dynamic Quality. Self reproduction overcomes the problem of depletion by age as new fresh younglings are made. Self reproduction in more than one copy of every original also brings in an economic advantage as viruses can spread in masses and find places where chances to survive is better. We should see the possibilities for a free choice to stay in the acid or move not only as an individual choice but as a species with large number of copies where the free choice is made by those who happen to be away from the acid. Mutations is also a new possibility as the reproductionary systems fails and some new versions show up to be more fit to the environment than others and Voila, inorganic evolution is here. Time and order is still a very high quality idea as depletion, reproduction and evolution by mutations is very hard to understand and explain without a correct, working, concept of time. Thanks to DQ, we have more brands of self reproducing vegetables than Motorcycles. Jan-Anders 7 feb 2014 x kl. 13.36 skrev Horse: Hi Dave I agree with much of what you say but it's still very important to remember that DNA-based life is no more than one possible way for life to exist and that it involves an environment and a context. Not having experienced something (or maybe mis-interpreting something that we do experience) should not blind us to the probability that it exists. Isn't this part of the 'Cleveland Harbor Effect'? Then he remembered the little discrepancies he had seen on the chart when he came in. When a buoy had a wrong number on it he presumed it had been changed since the chart was made. When a certain wall appeared that was not shown, he assumed it had been built recently or maybe he hadn't come to it yet and he wasn't quite where he thought he was. It never occurred to him to think he was in a whole different harbor! It was a parable for students of scientific objectivity. Wherever the chart disagreed with his observations he rejected the observation and followed the chart. Because of what his mind thought it knew, it had built up a static filter, an immune
Re: [MD] Step one
Hi Dave I agree with much of what you say but it's still very important to remember that DNA-based life is no more than one possible way for life to exist and that it involves an environment and a context. Not having experienced something (or maybe mis-interpreting something that we do experience) should not blind us to the probability that it exists. Isn't this part of the 'Cleveland Harbor Effect'? Then he remembered the little “discrepancies” he had seen on the chart when he came in. When a buoy had a “wrong” number on it he presumed it had been changed since the chart was made. When a certain wall appeared that was not shown, he assumed it had been built recently or maybe he hadn’t come to it yet and he wasn’t quite where he thought he was. It never occurred to him to think he was in a whole different harbor! It was a parable for students of scientific objectivity. Wherever the chart disagreed with his observations he rejected the observation and followed the chart. Because of what his mind thought it knew, it had built up a static filter, an immune system, that was shutting out all information that did not fit. Seeing is not believing. Believing is seeing. If this were just an individual phenomenon it would not be so serious. But it is a huge cultural phenomenon too and it is very serious. We build up whole cultural intellectual patterns based on past “facts” which are extremely selective. When a new fact comes in that does not fit the pattern we don’t throw out the pattern. We throw out the fact. A contradictory fact has to keep hammering and hammering and hammering, sometimes for centuries, before maybe one or two people will see it. And then these one or two have to start hammering on others for a long time before they see it too. Pisig, Lila, Ch.26 This isn't to say that we should believe any old nonsense, but that we remain open to DQ and by sticking rigidly to a definition as the only possibility (because that is all we appear to have experienced) then there is very real likelihood that new experience is inadvertently rejected. The MoQ simply states that biological patterns evolve from inorganic patterns - not that DNA-based life evolves from RNA or other specific complex molecules. Remaining open to other possibilities is one way of following DQ. Cheers Horse On 02/02/2014 16:03, david wrote: Horse said to dmb: At the risk of misinterpreting what Ian's saying, I think what he means is that, as a generalisation, 'life' is the next step up from 'matter'! What we know as life is based around the double helix and involves DNA, genes, proteins etc. but this is only one possible way that life may have emerged. It's a big universe and we only have a sample of one at the present time so to say that life = DNA is a big step in the wrong direction cos we just don't know about other ways in which life may come about. ...A metaphysics needs to be a generalisation that can be applied to all situations and contexts regardless of specifics - the specifics should conform to the general theory of what constitutes what is and isn't 'real'. dmb says: Right, we just don't know about other ways in which life may come about. That's what I was getting at when I said, DNA-based life isn't just the most obvious kind, I think, but rather the only kind we know of. As I understand it, the MOQ's radical empiricism says that philosophers have no business talking about things outside of experience, no business talking about what James called trans-experiential entities and metaphysical fictions. And this is not an arbitrary rule but rather an assertion about what we can rightly consider to be real. (If it is known in experience, then it must be included in the philosophers account and, by the same token, if it is not known in experience philosophers should keep it out of their accounts.) I think life that is NOT based on DNA would qualify as something that is outside of experience. One can imagine or speculate but nothing more. When we adopt the radical insight that Man is a participant in the creation of all things, every last bit of it, then the universe is not a separate reality to be discovered but rather a heap of analogies based on experience. Analytic philosophers like to talk about what true and false in all possible worlds but I think the radical empiricism just kind of shakes his head at that kind of hypothetical abstraction. Abstraction, functioning in this way, becomes a means of arrest far more than a means of advance in thought. It mutilates things; it creates difficulties and finds impossibilities; and more than half the trouble that metaphysicians and logicians give themselves over the paradoxes and dialectic puzzles of the universe may, I am convinced, be traced to this relatively simple source. THE VICIOUSLY PRIVATIVE EMPLOYMENT OF ABSTRACT CHARACTERS AND CLASS NAMES is, I am persuaded, one of the great original sins of the
Re: [MD] Step one
Hi Dave At the risk of misinterpreting what Ian's saying, I think what he means is that, as a generalisation, 'life' is the next step up from 'matter'! What we know as life is based around the double helix and involves DNA, genes, proteins etc. but this is only one possible way that life may have emerged. It's a big universe and we only have a sample of one at the present time so to say that life = DNA is a big step in the wrong direction cos we just don't know about other ways in which life may come about. The MoQ makes a huge (and IMO correct) generalisation that organic/biological patterns follow on from inorganic patterns. Terrestrial life is a specific instance of biological patterns of value - there may be other specific instances in other parts of the universe. What those instances should follow though, if the MoQ is correct, is that they share the same patterns of reproduction, feeding etc. that Pirsig points out in his work. Closer to home, it may be that at some point there will be other forms of life that exist but that their environment and context will be different. Artificial (or virtual) realities could well contain life (and may already) - it just depends on how you want to define and identify it. A metaphysics needs to be a generalisation that can be applied to all situations and contexts regardless of specifics - the specifics should conform to the general theory of what constitutes what is and isn't 'real'. Cheers Horse On 01/02/2014 23:50, david wrote: Ian said: The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history. Andre replied: Can you enlighten us with your knowledge of life that is not 'necessarily organic life' i.e. DNA 'based' life? Just interested in the non-obvious. dmb says: I was wondering about Ian's strange claim too. Since organic means of life, related to life, derived from living matter, it's hard to imagine what non-organic life would mean. DNA-based life isn't just the most obvious kind, I think, but rather the only kind we know of. Isn't that why a virus is considered a borderline case, because it only lives by highjacking the DNA of more proper organisms? In any case, I can only wonder what Ian is referring to. 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 -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. — Frank Zappa --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Horse said to dmb: At the risk of misinterpreting what Ian's saying, I think what he means is that, as a generalisation, 'life' is the next step up from 'matter'! What we know as life is based around the double helix and involves DNA, genes, proteins etc. but this is only one possible way that life may have emerged. It's a big universe and we only have a sample of one at the present time so to say that life = DNA is a big step in the wrong direction cos we just don't know about other ways in which life may come about. ...A metaphysics needs to be a generalisation that can be applied to all situations and contexts regardless of specifics - the specifics should conform to the general theory of what constitutes what is and isn't 'real'. dmb says: Right, we just don't know about other ways in which life may come about. That's what I was getting at when I said, DNA-based life isn't just the most obvious kind, I think, but rather the only kind we know of. As I understand it, the MOQ's radical empiricism says that philosophers have no business talking about things outside of experience, no business talking about what James called trans-experiential entities and metaphysical fictions. And this is not an arbitrary rule but rather an assertion about what we can rightly consider to be real. (If it is known in experience, then it must be included in the philosophers account and, by the same token, if it is not known in experience philosophers should keep it out of their accounts.) I think life that is NOT based on DNA would qualify as something that is outside of experience. One can imagine or speculate but nothing more. When we adopt the radical insight that Man is a participant in the creation of all things, every last bit of it, then the universe is not a separate reality to be discovered but rather a heap of analogies based on experience. Analytic philosophers like to talk about what true and false in all possible worlds but I think the radical empiricism just kind of shakes his head at that kind of hypothetical abstraction. Abstraction, functioning in this way, becomes a means of arrest far more than a means of advance in thought. It mutilates things; it creates difficulties and finds impossibilities; and more than half the trouble that metaphysicians and logicians give themselves over the paradoxes and dialectic puzzles of the universe may, I am convinced, be traced to this relatively simple source. THE VICIOUSLY PRIVATIVE EMPLOYMENT OF ABSTRACT CHARACTERS AND CLASS NAMES is, I am persuaded, one of the great original sins of the rationalistic mind. -- William James (Emphasis is James's) As Charlene Seigfried puts it, paraphrasing William James, abstractionism had become vicious already with Socrates and Plato, who deified conceptualization and denigrated the ever-changing flow of experience, thus forgetting and falsifying the origin of concepts as humanly constructed extracts from the temporal flux. (William James's Radical Reconstruction of Philosophy, 379.) 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Andre 1 feb 2014 kl. 08:45 skrev Andre andrebroer...@gmail.com: J-A: How can we describe the difference between moral 1, the inorganic, and moral 2 the organic? Andre: My guess is that the inorganic level is 'informed' by the morals of the laws of (quantum)physics, My guess is that the organic level is 'informed' by the morals of the laws of nature. Yes, we all know that, but what is the difference? What was it that triggered this shift? DQ of course, but how did it happen? The basic cause for step one? I may suggest that it has to do with selfperpetuating processes. We should be able to agree about that processes on earth like yearly climate dependant cycles like snow, freezing. Like earthquakes, geysers, black smokers under the sea, are still inorganic processes. At one point the patterns are going into organic. Where the superior organic patterns are using the inorganic patterns but for their own purpose. Lila, sort of. How can we MOQers tell that in a few sentences to a SOMer? Jan-Anders J-A: And where did those annotations come from? Andre: Lila's Child. You should be able to purchase a copy from Dan (he compiled it) or from Anthony. 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Ian: The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history. Andre: Can you enlighten us with your knowledge of life that is not 'necessarily organic life' i.e. DNA 'based' life? Just interested in the non-obvious. 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
Re: [MD] Step one
J-A: Yes, we all know that, but what is the difference? What was it that triggered this shift? DQ of course, but how did it happen? The basic cause for step one? Andre: Life is heading away from patterns, from whatever laws we may invent to explain them. As Lennon sang; 'Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans'. Value cannot be contained by static patterns. It's the other way around J-A. It's 'life' or 'death'. I guess 'life' seemed to have more potential? How did it happen? All our mental constructions cannot explain this. All you come up with is static patterns while the real creative force is DQ. Ineffably striving 'betterness'. Whatever that means. 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Ian said: The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history. Andre replied: Can you enlighten us with your knowledge of life that is not 'necessarily organic life' i.e. DNA 'based' life? Just interested in the non-obvious. dmb says: I was wondering about Ian's strange claim too. Since organic means of life, related to life, derived from living matter, it's hard to imagine what non-organic life would mean. DNA-based life isn't just the most obvious kind, I think, but rather the only kind we know of. Isn't that why a virus is considered a borderline case, because it only lives by highjacking the DNA of more proper organisms? In any case, I can only wonder what Ian is referring to. 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
Re: [MD] Step one
JA By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how to define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two, the organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives. It's a huge difference - the difference between life and death, eh? It's as much a mystery as the definition of DQ itself since we don't have either intellectually encapsulated as of yet. Philosophically speaking, the difference lies between that which can choose, and that which cannot. An amoeba can inch away from the acid but the quartz can not. J 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
Re: [MD] Step one
dmb, On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:50 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: I see we're on the same schedule since you posted this 7 mins ago. And btw, we agree on somethings because tomorrow my whole mantra will be go broncos. fuck seattle. Ian said: The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history. Andre replied Can you enlighten us with your knowledge of life that is not 'necessarily organic life' i.e. DNA 'based' life? Just interested in the non-obvious. dmb says: I was wondering about Ian's strange claim too. Since organic means of life, related to life, derived from living matter, it's hard to imagine what non-organic life would mean. John says: some people think crystals are alive, because they grow and replicate too. But I don't agree. Life is more dynamic than that. Life has choice in a dimension that non-life does not experience and there's no denying that. dnbL DNA-based life isn't just the most obvious kind, I think, but rather the only kind we know of. Isn't that why a virus is considered a borderline case, because it only lives by highjacking the DNA of more proper organisms? In any case, I can only wonder what Ian is referring to. I'm sure he means well dave, as we all do, and I'm eager to hear more, as you yourself. J 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Nice work Andre. Selfperpetuating sounds as an elementary difference. Where does these annotations comw from? 30 jan 2014 kl. 18:16 skrev Andre andrebroer...@gmail.com: Jan-Anders: By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how to define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two, the organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives. Andre: 'Everything that has not been created by life (defined as DNA) is an inorganic value pattern'. Annot.42 Ipso facto an organic pattern is the 'presence of DNA in a self-perpetuating pattern'. Annot.23 The boundary between inorganic patterns and organic patterns is the virus 'because it is the simplest organism that contains DNA. I have read there is some dispute about the virus being living or dead, and I take this dispute as evidence that it is the boundary' Annotn. 48. 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail ? Or (for dmb), can you tell the green slime from your feet of clay ? The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history. Just life. Now, defining life replication is a key part of it, but if you're into splitting hairs you'll find everything comes in layers, including the layers Ian On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: dmb says: As I understand it, the distinction between organic and inorganic is something everyone already understands. It's not something Pirsig invented. It's just the difference between Adam and the clay from which he was formed. It's the difference between rocks and trees, between ants and suns. I don't understand why anyone needs to ask such a question. Jan-Anders: By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how to define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two, the organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives. Andre: 'Everything that has not been created by life (defined as DNA) is an inorganic value pattern'. Annot.42 Ipso facto an organic pattern is the 'presence of DNA in a self-perpetuating pattern'. Annot.23 The boundary between inorganic patterns and organic patterns is the virus 'because it is the simplest organism that contains DNA. I have read there is some dispute about the virus being living or dead, and I take this dispute as evidence that it is the boundary' Annotn. 48. 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Well Ian, Lila is an inquiry about morals. Please notice the last letter s. That means that RMP was pointing at more than one moral level. So what are the moral like at level 1 and at level 2? Just curious but still serious Jan-Anders 31 jan 2014 kl. 14:23 skrev Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com: Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail ? Or (for dmb), can you tell the green slime from your feet of clay ? The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history. Just life. Now, defining life replication is a key part of it, but if you're into splitting hairs you'll find everything comes in layers, including the layers Ian On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: dmb says: As I understand it, the distinction between organic and inorganic is something everyone already understands. It's not something Pirsig invented. It's just the difference between Adam and the clay from which he was formed. It's the difference between rocks and trees, between ants and suns. I don't understand why anyone needs to ask such a question. Jan-Anders: By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how to define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two, the organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives. Andre: 'Everything that has not been created by life (defined as DNA) is an inorganic value pattern'. Annot.42 Ipso facto an organic pattern is the 'presence of DNA in a self-perpetuating pattern'. Annot.23 The boundary between inorganic patterns and organic patterns is the virus 'because it is the simplest organism that contains DNA. I have read there is some dispute about the virus being living or dead, and I take this dispute as evidence that it is the boundary' Annotn. 48. 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 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Jan Anders Huh? Obviously I know. Andre's question was about the first step, between 1 and 2 Ian On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Jan-Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Well Ian, Lila is an inquiry about morals. Please notice the last letter s. That means that RMP was pointing at more than one moral level. So what are the moral like at level 1 and at level 2? Just curious but still serious Jan-Anders 31 jan 2014 kl. 14:23 skrev Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com: Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail ? Or (for dmb), can you tell the green slime from your feet of clay ? The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history. Just life. Now, defining life replication is a key part of it, but if you're into splitting hairs you'll find everything comes in layers, including the layers Ian On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: dmb says: As I understand it, the distinction between organic and inorganic is something everyone already understands. It's not something Pirsig invented. It's just the difference between Adam and the clay from which he was formed. It's the difference between rocks and trees, between ants and suns. I don't understand why anyone needs to ask such a question. Jan-Anders: By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how to define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two, the organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives. Andre: 'Everything that has not been created by life (defined as DNA) is an inorganic value pattern'. Annot.42 Ipso facto an organic pattern is the 'presence of DNA in a self-perpetuating pattern'. Annot.23 The boundary between inorganic patterns and organic patterns is the virus 'because it is the simplest organism that contains DNA. I have read there is some dispute about the virus being living or dead, and I take this dispute as evidence that it is the boundary' Annotn. 48. 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 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
Re: [MD] Step one
Yes, what, exactly, is, the difference between level 1 and level 2. Step one if you think entering the organic level is the first. Some might argue that this would be step two as it takes one step to get on the bus. How can we describe the difference between moral 1, the inorganic, and moral 2 the organic? There are some hints in Lila. And where did those annotations come from? Jan-Anders 31 jan 2014 kl. 18:56 skrev Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com: Jan Anders Huh? Obviously I know. Andre's question was about the first step, between 1 and 2 Ian On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Jan-Anders Andersson janander...@telia.com wrote: Well Ian, Lila is an inquiry about morals. Please notice the last letter s. That means that RMP was pointing at more than one moral level. So what are the moral like at level 1 and at level 2? Just curious but still serious Jan-Anders 31 jan 2014 kl. 14:23 skrev Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com: Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail ? Or (for dmb), can you tell the green slime from your feet of clay ? The distinction between levels 1 and 2 is life - not necessarily organic life, or DNA-based organic life, that just happens to be the most-obvious form in the circumstances of human history. Just life. Now, defining life replication is a key part of it, but if you're into splitting hairs you'll find everything comes in layers, including the layers Ian On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: dmb says: As I understand it, the distinction between organic and inorganic is something everyone already understands. It's not something Pirsig invented. It's just the difference between Adam and the clay from which he was formed. It's the difference between rocks and trees, between ants and suns. I don't understand why anyone needs to ask such a question. Jan-Anders: By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how to define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two, the organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives. Andre: 'Everything that has not been created by life (defined as DNA) is an inorganic value pattern'. Annot.42 Ipso facto an organic pattern is the 'presence of DNA in a self-perpetuating pattern'. Annot.23 The boundary between inorganic patterns and organic patterns is the virus 'because it is the simplest organism that contains DNA. I have read there is some dispute about the virus being living or dead, and I take this dispute as evidence that it is the boundary' Annotn. 48. 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 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 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
Re: [MD] Step one
J-A: How can we describe the difference between moral 1, the inorganic, and moral 2 the organic? Andre: My guess is that the inorganic level is 'informed' by the morals of the laws of (quantum)physics, My guess is that the organic level is 'informed' by the morals of the laws of nature. J-A: And where did those annotations come from? Andre: Lila's Child. You should be able to purchase a copy from Dan (he compiled it) or from Anthony. 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
Re: [MD] Step one
dmb says: As I understand it, the distinction between organic and inorganic is something everyone already understands. It's not something Pirsig invented. It's just the difference between Adam and the clay from which he was formed. It's the difference between rocks and trees, between ants and suns. I don't understand why anyone needs to ask such a question. Jan-Anders: By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how to define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two, the organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives. Andre: 'Everything that has not been created by life (defined as DNA) is an inorganic value pattern'. Annot.42 Ipso facto an organic pattern is the 'presence of DNA in a self-perpetuating pattern'. Annot.23 The boundary between inorganic patterns and organic patterns is the virus 'because it is the simplest organism that contains DNA. I have read there is some dispute about the virus being living or dead, and I take this dispute as evidence that it is the boundary' Annotn. 48. 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
Re: [MD] Step one
We all her know that it is a difference, Adam and the clay is way of a romantic expression of the difference but how should a classical person describe it? A precise definition of the difference might be useful when we are talking to a complete novice for example. Inorganic patterns have a lifetime if millions of years while organic sturcture last for much shorter time. Organic patterns are reproducing themselves while inorganic are not. Why? JanAnders 30 jan 2014 kl. 19:58 skrev david dmbucha...@hotmail.com: dmb says: As I understand it, the distinction between organic and inorganic is something everyone already understands. It's not something Pirsig invented. It's just the difference between Adam and the clay from which he was formed. It's the difference between rocks and trees, between ants and suns. I don't understand why anyone needs to ask such a question. Jan-Anders: By inspiration from Andre I'll suggest that we start a discussion about how to define the difference between level one, the inorganic and level two, the organic. I couldn't find any consistent thread in the Archives. Andre: 'Everything that has not been created by life (defined as DNA) is an inorganic value pattern'. Annot.42 Ipso facto an organic pattern is the 'presence of DNA in a self-perpetuating pattern'. Annot.23 The boundary between inorganic patterns and organic patterns is the virus 'because it is the simplest organism that contains DNA. I have read there is some dispute about the virus being living or dead, and I take this dispute as evidence that it is the boundary' Annotn. 48. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
dmb, Step one is understanding the way intellectual static patterns of value function. This was demonstrated best by the reifying of the illusionary fiercest rivals. It is such a conceptual habit it cannot even be properly recognized. And of course there is that arrogant but imaginary autonomous little homunculus. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Oh, but maybe the reification of fiercest rivals was more a social pattern based on strong ambition, passion or arrogance. On Oct 26, 2010, at 4:44 AM, MarshaV wrote: dmb, Step one is understanding the way intellectual static patterns of value function. This was demonstrated best by the reifying of the illusionary fiercest rivals. It is such a conceptual habit it cannot even be properly recognized. And of course there is that arrogant but imaginary autonomous little homunculus. 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 ___ 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Greetings, I am not saying that the Intellectual Level is populated by subjects and objects; it is populated with patterns of value. I am describing the way intellectual static patterns of value FUNCTION. Marsha On Oct 24, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Dan Glover wrote: Hello everyone On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:09 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dan, Thanks. My apologies, I will take a few deep breaths before I respond in the future. I will certainly do my best to get current. As something of a newcomer, I will ask questions. My questions to you in the post concerning your dismissal of Marsha, which you responded to, were sincere. Perhaps when you have a chance you could respond to them. In order for me to understand MOQ I believe an understanding of the terms is necessary, some thought that goes into the source of concepts such as SOM. Things arise for a reason. In my recent response to A from Sweden, I proposed something concerning words. Any response to that would be most welcome as well. Hi Mark As I explained, your questions are meaningless in terms of the MOQ. Subject/object metaphysics is a collection of intellectual patterns of value that state reality is composed of a subject observing objects. Period. There is no room for values. In ZMM, Phaedrus goes to great lengths to show how Quality doesn't reside in either subject or object. It precedes them. Quality is left undefined. In LILA, Phaedrus decides to define Quality anyway... he compares his efforts to trying to keep the fat man out of the frig. Dynamic Quality is undefined while static quality is left in its wake. Dynamic Quality is what's better... not this, not that, as he puts it in LILA'S CHILD. Static quality is divided into four levels... Phaedrus says that if we were to construct an encyclopedia, everything would be contained within the four levels... every thing that is, except Dynamic Quality, which isn't a thing at all. In the MOQ, reality starts with experience. There is no reason why anything arises. The source and the destination of static quality patterns of value is Dynamic Quality. We are constantly defining Quality yet it can never be fully defined. It is inexhaustible. In ZMM, Phaedrus uses the term Quality Event to denote the source of subjects and objects, but in LILA, he abandons the term. Dynamic Quality is primary while static quality patterns of value are left in its wake. Still later, Robert Pirsig says that he saw how subjects and objects could be mapped onto the MOQ... subjects refer to social and intellectual patterns, while objects refer to inorganic and biological patterns. In this way, he marries philosophical idealism and scientific materialism under the umbrella of Quality. He states that there is no reason to get rid of the terms subject and object as long as it is remembered they refer to patterns of value, not to subject/object metaphysics. Now, my problem with Marsha (and Bodvar, of course) is her insistence that the intellectual level of the MOQ is identical to subject/object metaphysics. If you have followed what I said above, perhaps you can see the problem. Over ten years ago, Anthony McWatt confronted Bodvar on how SOM could be the intellectual level of the MOQ when Robert Pirsig indicates otherwise. Marsha's standard response is like Bodvar's... Robert Pirsig is wrong about his own metaphysics and their formulation is the one, true MOQ. Anyway, perhaps you can see how deeply this goes, and why my attempting an explanation really doesn't begin to touch the surface. But it is all there to read in the archives. It is a valuable resource, in my opinion, and not a cop-out as some might lead you to believe. And yes, ten-plus years of discussions is quite formidable. But, if a person is serious, it is a place to start catching up. Thank you, Dan Cheers and over and out, Mark On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:54 AM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dan, Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle that I have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know what SOM is by definition. When is it that something enters into the SOM realm? There seems to be a lot of grey area which you are not describing. When are we actually using SOM and when are we not? What is the boundary that defines one from the other? Is there philosophy going on in a mystical state where there is no separation? If so, how does this happen? How are we able to translate such an experience otherwise? The intellect may have many components that are not intellectual, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. A description, in metaphysical
Re: [MD] Step One
Platt to Mark: In the Metaphysics of Quality, the source of concepts such as SOM is Dynamic Quality. DQ is the source of all things. Andre: I stand corrected here Platt but this does not seem quite right. Yes, as Phaedrus puts it in ZMM 'The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and the objects,...' but this does not yet make for a [subject-object] metaphysics. SOM emerged out of the observation with which Phaedrus concludes the sentence:'... which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of Quality!'. (ZMM, p234) SOM does not acknowledge DQ. It suggests that the basic stuff 'composing' reality are subjects and objects full stop...and that Quality is an attribute of subjects and objects. This is backwards. 'The dilemma all the time had this unseen vile presumption in it, for which there was no logical justification, that Quality was the effect of subjects and objects. It was not!He brought out his knife. 'The sun of Quality' he wrote 'does not revolve around the subjects and objects of our existence. It does not passively illuminate them. It is not subordinate to them in any way.It has created them. They are subordinate to it'(ibid) 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Andre, Your reference is, of course, to ZMM which doesn't not present a metaphysics, static patterns of value, Intellectual or otherwise, or a hierarchical, evolutionary structure. Marsha On Oct 25, 2010, at 3:35 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: Platt to Mark: In the Metaphysics of Quality, the source of concepts such as SOM is Dynamic Quality. DQ is the source of all things. Andre: I stand corrected here Platt but this does not seem quite right. Yes, as Phaedrus puts it in ZMM 'The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and the objects,...' but this does not yet make for a [subject-object] metaphysics. SOM emerged out of the observation with which Phaedrus concludes the sentence:'... which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of Quality!'. (ZMM, p234) SOM does not acknowledge DQ. It suggests that the basic stuff 'composing' reality are subjects and objects full stop...and that Quality is an attribute of subjects and objects. This is backwards. 'The dilemma all the time had this unseen vile presumption in it, for which there was no logical justification, that Quality was the effect of subjects and objects. It was not!He brought out his knife. 'The sun of Quality' he wrote 'does not revolve around the subjects and objects of our existence. It does not passively illuminate them. It is not subordinate to them in any way.It has created them. They are subordinate to it'(ibid) 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Mark to Andre: I am sorry you feel that way. I am more than happy to leave politics out of this. Andre: And I am glad you didn't take my suggestion too seriously. I do not want to see anyone off this discuss who expresses a genuine interest in the MOQ as a whole. Mark: Now Andre, if you would be so kind as to respond to the following question, I would be most grateful: Where does SOM come from? I am not asking for a definition, I am asking for a process. What are the causal events that bring about SOM? Andre: I have answered this, hopefully to your satisfaction, in my recent reply to Platt. Phaedrus is much better at a proper formulation regarding this issue (in ZMM, including the roles of Plato and Aristotle) which, among other things was further developed in LILA where Phaedrus argues for a view of 'preference' rather than 'cause'. It irked Phaedrus because the word ''cause' implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of 'value' is one of preference' 'Therefore when you strike cause from the language and substitute 'value' you are not only replacing an empirically meaningless term with a meaningful one; you are using a term that is more appropriate to actual observation'(LILA,p 107) 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
Re: [MD] Step One
On 25 Oct 2010 at 9:35, Andre Broersen wrote: Platt to Mark: In the Metaphysics of Quality, the source of concepts such as SOM is Dynamic Quality. DQ is the source of all things. Andre: I stand corrected here Platt but this does not seem quite right. Yes, as Phaedrus puts it in ZMM 'The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and the objects,...' but this does not yet make for a [subject-object] metaphysics. SOM emerged out of the observation with which Phaedrus concludes the sentence:'... which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of Quality!'. (ZMM, p234) SOM does not acknowledge DQ. It suggests that the basic stuff 'composing' reality are subjects and objects full stop...and that Quality is an attribute of subjects and objects. This is backwards. 'The dilemma all the time had this unseen vile presumption in it, for which there was no logical justification, that Quality was the effect of subjects and objects. It was not!He brought out his knife. 'The sun of Quality' he wrote 'does not revolve around the subjects and objects of our existence. It does not passively illuminate them. It is not subordinate to them in any way.It has created them. They are subordinate to it'(ibid) Hi Andre, You may be right, of course, but as I see it there was no metaphysics of subject and objects before Pirsig identified it as such. Further, SOM is a fall out of DQ, like all value patterns are. Finally, Pirsig's identification and observations about the nature of SOM resulted from his response to DQ which, as you know, is the creative moral force and, as Pirsig has written, the source of all things. (Lila, 9) Platt. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Platt (and Marsha) to Andre: You may be right, of course, but as I see it there was no metaphysics of subject and objects before Pirsig identified it as such. Further, SOM is a fall out of DQ, like all value patterns are. Finally, Pirsig's identification and observations about the nature of SOM resulted from his response to DQ which, as you know, is the creative moral force and, as Pirsig has written, the source of all things. (Lila, 9) Andre: That's fair enough. As Pisig writes in Annotn 144: 'There has been no an academic category called “subject-object” metaphysics for the same reason that before Columbus discovered America there was no such geographical category as an “Old World.” Columbus discovery created the “Old World” as that entity which Columbus left behind. In the same way the MOQ has “created” subject-object metaphysics as that system of thought which the MOQ has left behind'. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Thanks Andre, That makes sense, I'll have to chew on it. Mark On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.comwrote: Mark to Andre: I am sorry you feel that way. I am more than happy to leave politics out of this. Andre: And I am glad you didn't take my suggestion too seriously. I do not want to see anyone off this discuss who expresses a genuine interest in the MOQ as a whole. Mark: Now Andre, if you would be so kind as to respond to the following question, I would be most grateful: Where does SOM come from? I am not asking for a definition, I am asking for a process. What are the causal events that bring about SOM? Andre: I have answered this, hopefully to your satisfaction, in my recent reply to Platt. Phaedrus is much better at a proper formulation regarding this issue (in ZMM, including the roles of Plato and Aristotle) which, among other things was further developed in LILA where Phaedrus argues for a view of 'preference' rather than 'cause'. It irked Phaedrus because the word ''cause' implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of 'value' is one of preference' 'Therefore when you strike cause from the language and substitute 'value' you are not only replacing an empirically meaningless term with a meaningful one; you are using a term that is more appropriate to actual observation'(LILA,p 107) 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
Re: [MD] Step One
The way i'm reading his interventions, is that they are based on the case-evidence, the material that is availiable ie ; Turners reflections, Mc Watt's work, DMB'S abstractions, Dan's interpretations,all the surrounding material like interviews, William James his work and the use of this as a tool to shape and form the science of the metaphysiks i can go on forever. I can find no distortions in what Andre is presenting, he works with the 'native' material, not some home-brew drivel. but more importantly, quality is an event, and the quality from ZAM is the same quality from LILA, as there is no gradation in quality, there is no other 'quality' then QUALITY.. itself, there is no other time then time itself ,and details like this do matter, because to make an event possible, it needs to have a beginning and an end,otherwise no dynamic quality can evolve within the model. time , the 4th dimension needs to be involved in the event QUALITY, only so quality can be the parent of static and dynamic quality. (imho) Here is a Pirsig/MC Watt impression on the evolutive caracter of quality/time/dynamic quality. http://robertpirsig.org/MOQTime.htm Incredibly important to note that Andre is not conflicting with any of this. greetzz, Adrie 2010/10/25 MarshaV val...@att.net Andre, Your reference is, of course, to ZMM which doesn't not present a metaphysics, static patterns of value, Intellectual or otherwise, or a hierarchical, evolutionary structure. Marsha On Oct 25, 2010, at 3:35 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: Platt to Mark: In the Metaphysics of Quality, the source of concepts such as SOM is Dynamic Quality. DQ is the source of all things. Andre: I stand corrected here Platt but this does not seem quite right. Yes, as Phaedrus puts it in ZMM 'The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and the objects,...' but this does not yet make for a [subject-object] metaphysics. SOM emerged out of the observation with which Phaedrus concludes the sentence:'... which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of Quality!'. (ZMM, p234) SOM does not acknowledge DQ. It suggests that the basic stuff 'composing' reality are subjects and objects full stop...and that Quality is an attribute of subjects and objects. This is backwards. 'The dilemma all the time had this unseen vile presumption in it, for which there was no logical justification, that Quality was the effect of subjects and objects. It was not!He brought out his knife. 'The sun of Quality' he wrote 'does not revolve around the subjects and objects of our existence. It does not passively illuminate them. It is not subordinate to them in any way.It has created them. They are subordinate to it'(ibid) 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 -- 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Mark asked Andre: Where does SOM come from? I am not asking for a definition, I am asking for a process. What are the causal events that bring about SOM? Andre: I have answered this, hopefully to your satisfaction, in my recent reply to Platt. Phaedrus is much better at a proper formulation regarding this issue (in ZMM, including the roles of Plato and Aristotle) which, among other things was further developed in LILA... Andre also quoted from Lila's Child, Annotation 144: 'There has been no an academic category called “subject-object” metaphysics for the same reason that before Columbus discovered America there was no such geographical category as an “Old World.” Columbus discovery created the “Old World” as that entity which Columbus left behind. In the same way the MOQ has “created” subject-object metaphysics as that system of thought which the MOQ has left behind'. dmb says: Right, SOM is not caused by some particular event. In ZAMM, the author traces the origins of our contemporary attitudes of objectivity and value-free science. He traces the problem all the way back to the very beginnings of philosophy, as Andre points out, and takes sides with the Sophists. But Aristotle and Plato were lost to the West for centuries and their rediscovery roughly co-incides with the beginnings of the early Modern Period, when science and philosophy were re-born in the West. That's where we get SOM proper, rather than its ancient precursors. Descartes is building upon the ancient philosophers the way the inventor of electric car depends on the first steam engine, our electrical grid and countless other pieces of technology that make it possible. In other words, Descartes' mind-body dualism grows out of a particular cultural situation. It makes sense within the whole body of inherited beliefs that constituted his 17th century French culture. In our own time, scientific objectivity has all but eliminated the subject, the mind. Some contemporary philosophers and scientists equate the brain and the mind so that you get a kind of physicalist monism, rather than a Cartesian dualism. That kind of scientific materialism is the hardest on values and morals. It's objectivity and value-free science that leads to the paralysis of relativism. By contrast, radical empiricism says, that subjects and objects are not the starting points of experience. Subjects and objects are secondary. They are concepts derived from something more fundamental which he [William James] described as 'the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories.' In this basic flux of experience, the distinctions of reflective thought, as as those between consciousness and content, subject and object, mind and matter, have not yet emerged in the forms which we make them. Pure experience [DQ] cannot be called either physical or psychical; it logically precedes this distinction. The status of subjects and objects is hereby reduced from the starting points of experience to concepts derived from experience. Radical empiricists maintain that all concepts and all abstractions are derived from experience and are true and good only to the extent that they function within the ongoing process of living. But this rejection of SOM is also about solving philosophical problems. The first great pitfall from which such a radical standing by experience will save us is an artificial conception of the relations between knower and known. Throughout the history of philosophy the subject and its object have been treated as absolutely discontinuous entities; and thereupon the presence of the latter to the former, or the 'apprehension' by the former of the latter, has assumed a paradoxical character which all sorts of theories had to be invented to overcome. See, THAT is the assumption they are attacking, that subjects and objects have been treated as absolutely discontinuous entities and the starting points of experience. James says this assumption has generated an artificial conception of the relations between knower (subject) and known (objects). As the Dewey scholar John Stuhr says. We INVENT the philosophical problem of how to get them (subjects and objects) together precisely by committing the error of conferring existential status upon the products of reflection. That last line is about the conceptual error known as reification. Reification is the mistake of confusing concepts with actual things, of taking abstract ideas and turning them into actual entities. That's what radical empiricism does NOT do to subjects and objects. Pirsig, James and Dewey all insist that subjects and objects are just abstract concepts, inherited philosophical ideas, and NOT the primary structure of reality. The MOQ de-reifies or un-reifies subjects and objects. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
Re: [MD] Step One
Dan, Dave, An excellent explanation, It should be placed within the site somehow of moQ.org as a contextual touchstone for discussions. a treat to read. Thanks -Ron Hello everyone On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:32 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: Mark asked Andre: Where does SOM come from? I am not asking for a definition, I am asking for a process. What are the causal events that bring about SOM? Andre: I have answered this, hopefully to your satisfaction, in my recent reply to Platt. Phaedrus is much better at a proper formulation regarding this issue (in ZMM, including the roles of Plato and Aristotle) which, among other things was further developed in LILA... Andre also quoted from Lila's Child, Annotation 144: 'There has been no an academic category called “subject-object” metaphysics for the same reason that before Columbus discovered America there was no such geographical category as an “Old World.” Columbus discovery created the “Old World” as that entity which Columbus left behind. In the same way the MOQ has “created” subject-object metaphysics as that system of thought which the MOQ has left behind'. dmb says: Right, SOM is not caused by some particular event. In ZAMM, the author traces the origins of our contemporary attitudes of objectivity and value-free science. He traces the problem all the way back to the very beginnings of philosophy, as Andre points out, and takes sides with the Sophists. But Aristotle and Plato were lost to the West for centuries and their rediscovery roughly co-incides with the beginnings of the early Modern Period, when science and philosophy were re-born in the West. That's where we get SOM proper, rather than its ancient precursors. Descartes is building upon the ancient philosophers the way the inventor of electric car depends on the first steam engine, our electrical grid and countless other pieces of technology that make it possible. In other words, Descartes' mind-body dualism grows out of a particular cultural situation. It makes sense within the whole body of inherited beliefs that constituted his 17th century French culture. In our own time, scientific objectivity has all but eliminated the subject, the mind. Some contemporary philosophers and scientists equate the brain and the mind so that you get a kind of physicalist monism, rather than a Cartesian dualism. That kind of scientific materialism is the hardest on values and morals. It's objectivity and value-free science that leads to the paralysis of relativism. Dan: In annotation 144, Robert Pirsig uses quotes around created to emphasize that the MOQ uncovers subject-object metaphysics the same way that Descartes uncovered cognito, ergo sum. He didn't create it so much as he brought it to light within the context of the cultural norms of his time. As you say, it is a continual process of new ideas building on a foundation of old ideas going all the way back to the dawn of recorded history. It's like philosphical archaeology, in a sense. With the MOQ, we have an expansion of thought that brings together seemingly opposing ideas like idealism and materialism. The MOQ doesn't destroy the old ideas so much as it sheds light on heretofore contradictary and mutually exclusive systems of thought. dmb: By contrast, radical empiricism says, that subjects and objects are not the starting points of experience. Subjects and objects are secondary. They are concepts derived from something more fundamental which he [William James] described as 'the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories.' In this basic flux of experience, the distinctions of reflective thought, as as those between consciousness and content, subject and object, mind and matter, have not yet emerged in the forms which we make them. Pure experience [DQ] cannot be called either physical or psychical; it logically precedes this distinction. The status of subjects and objects is hereby reduced from the starting points of experience to concepts derived from experience. Radical empiricists maintain that all concepts and all abstractions are derived from experience and are true and good only to the extent that they function within the ongoing process of living. But this rejection of SOM is also about solving philosophical problems. The first great pitfall from which such a radical standing by experience will save us is an artificial conception of the relations between knower and known. Throughout the history of philosophy the subject and its object have been treated as absolutely discontinuoucs entities; and thereupon the presence of the latter to the former, or the 'apprehension' by the former of the latter, has assumed a paradoxical character which all sorts of theories had to be invented to overcome. See, THAT is the assumption they are attacking, that subjects and objects have
Re: [MD] Step One
Yes I do Marsha - I also post as the Moderator/Administrator of MD Apart from that though, I only post as Horse. Posting as another identity is not generally a problem as long as there is no devious or deceitful intent. However, if I find that someone is posting to get around a ban or to circumvent any restrictions I have introduced I will remove all instances of that member unless there is a very good reason not to do so. Very good reasons to me that is. Horse On 24/10/2010 03:39, MarshaV wrote: Horse, Do you ever post on the MD using a different name, an alias name? Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Horse wrote: However you word it Marsha, SOM as the Intellectual level is SOL. Whether it's by the front or the back door. Two posts a day. That's the limit, please observe it. Horse On 23/10/2010 19:00, MarshaV wrote: Greetings Horse, I am not discussing the SOL, it my view of the Intellectual Level based on reification. I don't believe Bo ever used the word reification. Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Horse wrote: Marsha, I think you've had more than your two posts a day regarding the SOL. As a reminder to folks on this list, SOM as the Intellectual Level (SOL) is restricted to a maximum of two posts per day per member. Please bear this in mind. Horse On 23/10/2010 18:52, MarshaV wrote: Greetings, Here is how I interpret, based on how the patterns function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, 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 -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. — Frank Zappa 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Hello everyone On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dan, Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle that I have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know what SOM is by definition. When is it that something enters into the SOM realm? There seems to be a lot of grey area which you are not describing. When are we actually using SOM and when are we not? What is the boundary that defines one from the other? Is there philosophy going on in a mystical state where there is no separation? If so, how does this happen? How are we able to translate such an experience otherwise? The intellect may have many components that are not intellectual, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. A description, in metaphysical terms of its arising would be most useful. It appears that Marsha is attempting to define such boundaries. Could you please define yours, and stop being so silly about it? I would like to see you defend your rationale without resorting to some nonsensical not this not that. Dan: Mark, you obviously have A LOT of catching up to do before we can hold a reasonable discussion. Subject/object metaphysics holds that there are only a subject observing objects. Period. Reading your posts, I don't see that you've grasped that. When you ask: When is it that something enters the SOM realm... something doesn't enter the SOM realm. There isn't something out there called SOM. That is the fallacy that Robert Pirsig tried to correct with his Metaphysics of Quality. And for the record, I am not being silly. It is your lack of understanding that makes it seem so. Next thing you'll be calling me a retard, I suppose. Not this, not that has nothing to do with the definition of the intellectual level. Honestly, I am not teacher, Mark. I have very little patience with people who bounce in on their high horse spouting how smart they are. A good scientist would do the research... read the archives for starters... read Anthony McWatt's work... read LILA and ZMM... and if you claim to have read them, read them again. You haven't got the message. Dan Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to miss, even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it merely insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have responded with a childish evasion. Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a particular kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of philosophy, then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as a formalized subject/object level (SOM)? How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's like defining food as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the first place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just the ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations and the like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's not to understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use to read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just thinking. Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%. That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, I characterized your reasoning as spectacularly bad and spectacularly stupid but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child could have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. Insult and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, is there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence mean absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you can cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction without embarrassment. Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d. Therefore: Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part of d in recent historic times? C'mon. Anyone can see how s)pectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with it is very clear, no? Dan comments: Yes, I don't get it either... this facination of attempting to define the intellectual level as something it is obviously not, at least not in the framework of the MOQ. SOM as intellect (and I don't care how it is clothed, it is still SOM as intellect) is an unreasonable position that leads to nonsensical conclusions that any serious
Re: [MD] Step One
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dan, Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle that I have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know what SOM is by definition. When is it that something enters into the SOM realm? There seems to be a lot of grey area which you are not describing. When are we actually using SOM and when are we not? What is the boundary that defines one from the other? Is there philosophy going on in a mystical state where there is no separation? If so, how does this happen? How are we able to translate such an experience otherwise? The intellect may have many components that are not intellectual, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. A description, in metaphysical terms of its arising would be most useful. It appears that Marsha is attempting to define such boundaries. Could you please define yours, and stop being so silly about it? I would like to see you defend your rationale without resorting to some nonsensical not this not that. Dan: Mark, you obviously have A LOT of catching up to do before we can hold a reasonable discussion. Subject/object metaphysics holds that there are only a subject observing objects. Period. Reading your posts, I don't see that you've grasped that. When you ask: When is it that something enters the SOM realm... something doesn't enter the SOM realm. There isn't something out there called SOM. That is the fallacy that Robert Pirsig tried to correct with his Metaphysics of Quality. And for the record, I am not being silly. It is your lack of understanding that makes it seem so. Next thing you'll be calling me a retard, I suppose. Not this, not that has nothing to do with the definition of the intellectual level. Honestly, I am not teacher, Mark. I have very little patience with people who bounce in on their high horse spouting how smart they are. A good scientist would do the research... read the archives for starters... read Anthony McWatt's work... read LILA and ZMM... and if you claim to have read them, read them again. You haven't got the message. Dan Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to miss, even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it merely insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have responded with a childish evasion. Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a particular kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of philosophy, then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as a formalized subject/object level (SOM)? How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's like defining food as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the first place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just the ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations and the like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's not to understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use to read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just thinking. Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%. That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, I characterized your reasoning as spectacularly bad and spectacularly stupid but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child could have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. Insult and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, is there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence mean absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you can cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction without embarrassment. Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d. Therefore: Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part of d in recent historic times? C'mon. Anyone can see how s)pectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with it is very clear, no? Dan comments: Yes, I don't get it either... this facination of attempting to define the intellectual level as something it is obviously not, at least not in the
Re: [MD] Step One
Mark As Dan says, you haven't, apparently, been around long enough yet to grasp what's going on here and his suggestion that you consult the archives, Anthony's work etc. is very apt. What Dan has said is plain good sense and is said without being rude unlike your reply. Cheers Horse On 24/10/2010 15:16, Dan Glover wrote: Mark, you obviously have A LOT of catching up to do before we can hold a reasonable discussion. Subject/object metaphysics holds that there are only a subject observing objects. Period. Reading your posts, I don't see that you've grasped that. When you ask: When is it that something enters the SOM realm... something doesn't enter the SOM realm. There isn't something out there called SOM. That is the fallacy that Robert Pirsig tried to correct with his Metaphysics of Quality. And for the record, I am not being silly. It is your lack of understanding that makes it seem so. Next thing you'll be calling me a retard, I suppose. Not this, not that has nothing to do with the definition of the intellectual level. Honestly, I am not teacher, Mark. I have very little patience with people who bounce in on their high horse spouting how smart they are. A good scientist would do the research... read the archives for starters... read Anthony McWatt's work... read LILA and ZMM... and if you claim to have read them, read them again. You haven't got the message. Dan On 24/10/2010 15:54, 118 wrote: [Mark] Hi Dan, Is that all you've got? Hmmm...Intellectual indeed. Is that what you call answers? Well, then, my only response is: Go back to your master, you effing rottweiler! You want it your way, there's a nice big bowl of dog food waiting for you under the table, snarf it up, it will make you happy. Stop your pathetic snarling on these airwaves! Don't come back until you have something productive to bark about! Go now, shoo,shoo. That's a good boy. Mark -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. — Frank Zappa 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Mark to Dan: Well, then, my only response is: Go back to your master, you effing rottweiler! You want it your way, there's a nice big bowl of dog food waiting for you under the table, snarf it up, it will make you happy. Stop your pathetic snarling on these airwaves! Don't come back until you have something productive to bark about! Go now, shoo,shoo. That's a good boy. Mark to Ian: What kind of controls does the UK place on its private insurance carriers? It's only an argument if you want it to be. Left, right, left, right, left, right ... Marsha: promoting youtube for the zillionth time. Mark: I like Ham's notion of accepting and seeing where it leads. However, being the biochemist I am, I look for cause. What divides the subject object? Do words create Value? Horse: I've tried to avoid getting dragged into the stupidity of what's been going on here but obviously haven't done a very good job. So folks, on those threads that have degenerated into political name-calling, left-right disputations etc. I am requesting that they come to a close now. Andre: Mark obviously does not belong on this discuss. To respond to Dan like that is showing nothing but contempt on top of a waste-full ignorance of what the messages, as revealed through ZMM and LILA, are. You, Mark, as a self proclaimed scientist, feed the likes of Marsha, Ham, Bodvar and Platt through your confirmation and obvious inability of getting away from the SOM way of dealing with things ( and I do mean 'dealing' and 'things' in the way they are intended). Dealing with the given (whilst you seem to have no idea that you are the one actively participating in creating the given)...as things confronting you.( this is a stance dating back to Newton/Locke times) It supports Dan's observation that you have obviously not understood either ZMM nor LILA. The MOQ points the finger towards this process yet, you are oblivious. Yes, your intellect is SOM. It seems to me that you find it difficult to see SOM as one way of looking at the world disregarding other ways of looking at the world. You seem to me to be a true representative of the dominant Western paradigm...and are willing to create the most wonderful arguments (political)to sustain this paradigm. What are you hoping to achieve by being here on a discuss talking about Mr. Pirsig's MOQ?( Not yours, not mine, not Marsha's or Platt's nor Arlo's or dmb's or Horse's or Adrie's or Ron's, or Steve or Ian, or Graig's)...no Mr. Pirsig's. The MOQ is supposed to be 'above' politics. It is supposedly pointing towards a rational foundation of reconciling seeming opposites. Of late, I have seen nothing but oppositional bunkers being created and being fired from. And who are getting shot? The fucking messengers. The likes of Mr. Pirsig (!), dmb, Dan, Anthony and Horse (who is trying to protect the messengers and copping flack for it...and this has nothing to do with Horse [ultimately] paying the electricity bill I am sure...this is so low!). Imho, I think we are in a sorry, sad and shameful state of affairs. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Moi? This Cartesian 'Me,' this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our eyeballs looking out through them in order to pass judgment on the affairs of the world, is just completely ridiculous. This self-appointed little editor of reality is just an impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines it. This Cartesian 'Me' is a software reality, not a hardware reality. This body on the left and this body on the right are running variations of the same program, the same 'Me,' which doesn't belong to either of them. The 'Me's' are simply a program format. Talk about aliens from another planet. This program based on 'Me's' and 'We's' is the alien. 'We' has only been here for a few thousand years or so. But these bodies that 'We' has taken over were around for ten times that long before 'We' came along. And the cells - my God, the cells have been around for thousands of times that long. (LILA, Chapter 15) On Oct 24, 2010, at 2:58 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: Mark to Dan: Well, then, my only response is: Go back to your master, you effing rottweiler! You want it your way, there's a nice big bowl of dog food waiting for you under the table, snarf it up, it will make you happy. Stop your pathetic snarling on these airwaves! Don't come back until you have something productive to bark about! Go now, shoo,shoo. That's a good boy. Mark to Ian: What kind of controls does the UK place on its private insurance carriers? It's only an argument if you want it to be. Left, right, left, right, left, right ... Marsha: promoting youtube for the zillionth time. Mark: I like Ham's notion of accepting and seeing where it leads. However, being the biochemist I am, I look for cause. What divides the subject object? Do words create Value? Horse: I've tried to avoid getting dragged into the stupidity of what's been going on here but obviously haven't done a very good job. So folks, on those threads that have degenerated into political name-calling, left-right disputations etc. I am requesting that they come to a close now. Andre: Mark obviously does not belong on this discuss. To respond to Dan like that is showing nothing but contempt on top of a waste-full ignorance of what the messages, as revealed through ZMM and LILA, are. You, Mark, as a self proclaimed scientist, feed the likes of Marsha, Ham, Bodvar and Platt through your confirmation and obvious inability of getting away from the SOM way of dealing with things ( and I do mean 'dealing' and 'things' in the way they are intended). Dealing with the given (whilst you seem to have no idea that you are the one actively participating in creating the given)...as things confronting you.( this is a stance dating back to Newton/Locke times) It supports Dan's observation that you have obviously not understood either ZMM nor LILA. The MOQ points the finger towards this process yet, you are oblivious. Yes, your intellect is SOM. It seems to me that you find it difficult to see SOM as one way of looking at the world disregarding other ways of looking at the world. You seem to me to be a true representative of the dominant Western paradigm...and are willing to create the most wonderful arguments (political)to sustain this paradigm. What are you hoping to achieve by being here on a discuss talking about Mr. Pirsig's MOQ?( Not yours, not mine, not Marsha's or Platt's nor Arlo's or dmb's or Horse's or Adrie's or Ron's, or Steve or Ian, or Graig's)...no Mr. Pirsig's. The MOQ is supposed to be 'above' politics. It is supposedly pointing towards a rational foundation of reconciling seeming opposites. Of late, I have seen nothing but oppositional bunkers being created and being fired from. And who are getting shot? The fucking messengers. The likes of Mr. Pirsig (!), dmb, Dan, Anthony and Horse (who is trying to protect the messengers and copping flack for it...and this has nothing to do with Horse [ultimately] paying the electricity bill I am sure...this is so low!). Imho, I think we are in a sorry, sad and shameful state of affairs. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Andre, I am sorry you feel that way. I am more than happy to leave politics out of this. My posts have been in response to questions posed to me. I can certainly not respond, and will do so. I provided some questions to Dan concerning SOM. If you thought my response was not appropriate then it was only because of the condescending way that he posted on this forum, and wished I would go away. I am not sure if you saw his response, but it was dismissive at best; so before you begin taking sides please review the context. Personally naming somebody as silly as Dan likes to do is not very professional. If he is protecting the MOQ, then a simple answer to my questions would have been appropriate, and not the sarcastic tone which he used. It appears that some treat this forum more like a dictate rather than a forum for discussion. You will find that in general my posts are most respectful. Yes, my intent is to provide clarity to Mr. Pirsig's view of Quality. And unless Horse is Pirsig in disguise (the horses from Plato's analogy), we are left free to do so. I do not believe there is any authority currently on this forum that dictates where it goes. It is a messy business working through the internet, but you get what you pay for. I will do my best to be respectful, but if there is any sarcastic dismissiveness because people do not like what I have to say, then I respond in kind. Nobody is getting shot, you do not have to read my posts, and I would suggest that you do not from now on. I have a lot more at stake that MoQ becomes something than you do. This is not an exercise in armchair philosophy, and I will ask you to review my posts from two years ago and most recently before you judge. Now Andre, if you would be so kind as to respond to the following question, I would be most grateful: Where does SOM come from? I am not asking for a definition, I am asking for a process. What are the causal events that bring about SOM? Thanks in advance, Mark On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.comwrote: Mark to Dan: Well, then, my only response is: Go back to your master, you effing rottweiler! You want it your way, there's a nice big bowl of dog food waiting for you under the table, snarf it up, it will make you happy. Stop your pathetic snarling on these airwaves! Don't come back until you have something productive to bark about! Go now, shoo,shoo. That's a good boy. Mark to Ian: What kind of controls does the UK place on its private insurance carriers? It's only an argument if you want it to be. Left, right, left, right, left, right ... Marsha: promoting youtube for the zillionth time. Mark: I like Ham's notion of accepting and seeing where it leads. However, being the biochemist I am, I look for cause. What divides the subject object? Do words create Value? Horse: I've tried to avoid getting dragged into the stupidity of what's been going on here but obviously haven't done a very good job. So folks, on those threads that have degenerated into political name-calling, left-right disputations etc. I am requesting that they come to a close now. Andre: Mark obviously does not belong on this discuss. To respond to Dan like that is showing nothing but contempt on top of a waste-full ignorance of what the messages, as revealed through ZMM and LILA, are. You, Mark, as a self proclaimed scientist, feed the likes of Marsha, Ham, Bodvar and Platt through your confirmation and obvious inability of getting away from the SOM way of dealing with things ( and I do mean 'dealing' and 'things' in the way they are intended). Dealing with the given (whilst you seem to have no idea that you are the one actively participating in creating the given)...as things confronting you.( this is a stance dating back to Newton/Locke times) It supports Dan's observation that you have obviously not understood either ZMM nor LILA. The MOQ points the finger towards this process yet, you are oblivious. Yes, your intellect is SOM. It seems to me that you find it difficult to see SOM as one way of looking at the world disregarding other ways of looking at the world. You seem to me to be a true representative of the dominant Western paradigm...and are willing to create the most wonderful arguments (political)to sustain this paradigm. What are you hoping to achieve by being here on a discuss talking about Mr. Pirsig's MOQ?( Not yours, not mine, not Marsha's or Platt's nor Arlo's or dmb's or Horse's or Adrie's or Ron's, or Steve or Ian, or Graig's)...no Mr. Pirsig's. The MOQ is supposed to be 'above' politics. It is supposedly pointing towards a rational foundation of reconciling seeming opposites. Of late, I have seen nothing but oppositional bunkers being created and being fired from. And who are getting shot? The fucking messengers. The likes of Mr. Pirsig (!), dmb, Dan, Anthony and Horse (who is trying to protect the
Re: [MD] Step One
interesting to note yet again- Greco-Buddhism, sometimes spelled Graeco-Buddhism, refers to the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed between the 4th century BCE and the 5th century CE in the area covered by the Indian sub-continent, and modern Afghanistan, Pakistan and north-western border regions of modern India, namely western portions of Jammu and Kashmir. It was a cultural consequence of a long chain of interactions begun by Greek forays into India from the time of Alexander the Great, carried further by the establishment of Indo-Greek rule in the area for some centuries, and extended during flourishing of the Hellenized empire of the Kushans.Greco-Buddhism influenced the artistic, and perhaps the spiritual framework, developments of Buddhism, particularly Mahayana Buddhism, founded in India, which represents one of the two main branches of Buddhism.[1] - Original Message From: david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org Sent: Sat, October 23, 2010 1:35:36 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Step One This threefold dependence is not intuitively obvious, for it is concealed by the appearance of phenomena as being self-sufficient and independent of conceptual designation. On the basis of these misleading appearances it is quite natural to think of, or conceptually apprehend, phenomena as self-defining things in themselves. This tendency is known as reification, and according to the Madhyamaka view, this is an inborn delusion that provides the basis for a host of mental afflictions. Reification decontextualizes. It views phenomena without regard to the causal nexus in which they arise, and without regard to the specific means of observation and conceptualization by which they are known. The Madhyamaka, or Centrist, view is so called because it seeks to avoid the two extremes of reifying phenomena on the one hand, and of denying the existence of phenomena on the other. Parrots squawk and peoples think. Echo's fate and Narcissus' link. Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:55:34 -0700 From: ununocti...@gmail.com To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org Subject: Re: [MD] Step One Hi Marsha, Thanks for your help in my search. I found the following web page on decontexualization. http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/decontext2.html Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Hi Mark, Here is how I interpret, based on how they function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:40 AM, MarshaV wrote: Correct interrupted to be interpreted. On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, 118 wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? Marsha: The point is I don't talk about it. Using intellect to talk about Quality, reifies it, and it is not this, not that. I experience it as unpatterned, and patterned flow, after that nothing fits well. If you want to talk about Intellectual Level patterns, or Social Level patterns, or Biological Level patterns, or Inorganic Level patterns, I think there is lots to consider and discuss. The point is that while you do not talk about it, you certainly write about it, unless you are in the wrong forum. Your description of experience is shorthand at best There are at least four words there that need interpretation (and one of those is not I, which can also be included). So, let's talk about the expression of quality in the subjects you reference above. You can consider it not really talking about Quality if that makes more sense to you. Mark Hi Mark, The Dynamic aspect of Quality is unknowable, indivisible, undefinable. Static
Re: [MD] Step One
Hello everyone On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:54 AM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dan, Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle that I have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know what SOM is by definition. When is it that something enters into the SOM realm? There seems to be a lot of grey area which you are not describing. When are we actually using SOM and when are we not? What is the boundary that defines one from the other? Is there philosophy going on in a mystical state where there is no separation? If so, how does this happen? How are we able to translate such an experience otherwise? The intellect may have many components that are not intellectual, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. A description, in metaphysical terms of its arising would be most useful. It appears that Marsha is attempting to define such boundaries. Could you please define yours, and stop being so silly about it? I would like to see you defend your rationale without resorting to some nonsensical not this not that. Dan: Mark, you obviously have A LOT of catching up to do before we can hold a reasonable discussion. Subject/object metaphysics holds that there are only a subject observing objects. Period. Reading your posts, I don't see that you've grasped that. When you ask: When is it that something enters the SOM realm... something doesn't enter the SOM realm. There isn't something out there called SOM. That is the fallacy that Robert Pirsig tried to correct with his Metaphysics of Quality. And for the record, I am not being silly. It is your lack of understanding that makes it seem so. Next thing you'll be calling me a retard, I suppose. Not this, not that has nothing to do with the definition of the intellectual level. Honestly, I am not teacher, Mark. I have very little patience with people who bounce in on their high horse spouting how smart they are. A good scientist would do the research... read the archives for starters... read Anthony McWatt's work... read LILA and ZMM... and if you claim to have read them, read them again. You haven't got the message. Dan Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to miss, even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it merely insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have responded with a childish evasion. Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a particular kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of philosophy, then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as a formalized subject/object level (SOM)? How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's like defining food as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the first place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just the ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations and the like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's not to understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use to read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just thinking. Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%. That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, I characterized your reasoning as spectacularly bad and spectacularly stupid but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child could have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. Insult and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, is there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence mean absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you can cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction without embarrassment. Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d. Therefore: Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part of d in recent historic times? C'mon. Anyone can see how s)pectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with it is very clear, no? Dan comments: Yes, I don't get it either... this facination of attempting to
Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Dan, Thanks. My apologies, I will take a few deep breaths before I respond in the future. I will certainly do my best to get current. As something of a newcomer, I will ask questions. My questions to you in the post concerning your dismissal of Marsha, which you responded to, were sincere. Perhaps when you have a chance you could respond to them. In order for me to understand MOQ I believe an understanding of the terms is necessary, some thought that goes into the source of concepts such as SOM. Things arise for a reason. In my recent response to A from Sweden, I proposed something concerning words. Any response to that would be most welcome as well. Cheers and over and out, Mark On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:54 AM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dan, Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle that I have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know what SOM is by definition. When is it that something enters into the SOM realm? There seems to be a lot of grey area which you are not describing. When are we actually using SOM and when are we not? What is the boundary that defines one from the other? Is there philosophy going on in a mystical state where there is no separation? If so, how does this happen? How are we able to translate such an experience otherwise? The intellect may have many components that are not intellectual, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. A description, in metaphysical terms of its arising would be most useful. It appears that Marsha is attempting to define such boundaries. Could you please define yours, and stop being so silly about it? I would like to see you defend your rationale without resorting to some nonsensical not this not that. Dan: Mark, you obviously have A LOT of catching up to do before we can hold a reasonable discussion. Subject/object metaphysics holds that there are only a subject observing objects. Period. Reading your posts, I don't see that you've grasped that. When you ask: When is it that something enters the SOM realm... something doesn't enter the SOM realm. There isn't something out there called SOM. That is the fallacy that Robert Pirsig tried to correct with his Metaphysics of Quality. And for the record, I am not being silly. It is your lack of understanding that makes it seem so. Next thing you'll be calling me a retard, I suppose. Not this, not that has nothing to do with the definition of the intellectual level. Honestly, I am not teacher, Mark. I have very little patience with people who bounce in on their high horse spouting how smart they are. A good scientist would do the research... read the archives for starters... read Anthony McWatt's work... read LILA and ZMM... and if you claim to have read them, read them again. You haven't got the message. Dan Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to miss, even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it merely insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have responded with a childish evasion. Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a particular kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of philosophy, then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as a formalized subject/object level (SOM)? How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's like defining food as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the first place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just the ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations and the like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's not to understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use to read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just thinking. Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%. That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, I characterized your reasoning as spectacularly bad and spectacularly stupid but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child could
Re: [MD] Step One
Hello everyone On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:09 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dan, Thanks. My apologies, I will take a few deep breaths before I respond in the future. I will certainly do my best to get current. As something of a newcomer, I will ask questions. My questions to you in the post concerning your dismissal of Marsha, which you responded to, were sincere. Perhaps when you have a chance you could respond to them. In order for me to understand MOQ I believe an understanding of the terms is necessary, some thought that goes into the source of concepts such as SOM. Things arise for a reason. In my recent response to A from Sweden, I proposed something concerning words. Any response to that would be most welcome as well. Hi Mark As I explained, your questions are meaningless in terms of the MOQ. Subject/object metaphysics is a collection of intellectual patterns of value that state reality is composed of a subject observing objects. Period. There is no room for values. In ZMM, Phaedrus goes to great lengths to show how Quality doesn't reside in either subject or object. It precedes them. Quality is left undefined. In LILA, Phaedrus decides to define Quality anyway... he compares his efforts to trying to keep the fat man out of the frig. Dynamic Quality is undefined while static quality is left in its wake. Dynamic Quality is what's better... not this, not that, as he puts it in LILA'S CHILD. Static quality is divided into four levels... Phaedrus says that if we were to construct an encyclopedia, everything would be contained within the four levels... every thing that is, except Dynamic Quality, which isn't a thing at all. In the MOQ, reality starts with experience. There is no reason why anything arises. The source and the destination of static quality patterns of value is Dynamic Quality. We are constantly defining Quality yet it can never be fully defined. It is inexhaustible. In ZMM, Phaedrus uses the term Quality Event to denote the source of subjects and objects, but in LILA, he abandons the term. Dynamic Quality is primary while static quality patterns of value are left in its wake. Still later, Robert Pirsig says that he saw how subjects and objects could be mapped onto the MOQ... subjects refer to social and intellectual patterns, while objects refer to inorganic and biological patterns. In this way, he marries philosophical idealism and scientific materialism under the umbrella of Quality. He states that there is no reason to get rid of the terms subject and object as long as it is remembered they refer to patterns of value, not to subject/object metaphysics. Now, my problem with Marsha (and Bodvar, of course) is her insistence that the intellectual level of the MOQ is identical to subject/object metaphysics. If you have followed what I said above, perhaps you can see the problem. Over ten years ago, Anthony McWatt confronted Bodvar on how SOM could be the intellectual level of the MOQ when Robert Pirsig indicates otherwise. Marsha's standard response is like Bodvar's... Robert Pirsig is wrong about his own metaphysics and their formulation is the one, true MOQ. Anyway, perhaps you can see how deeply this goes, and why my attempting an explanation really doesn't begin to touch the surface. But it is all there to read in the archives. It is a valuable resource, in my opinion, and not a cop-out as some might lead you to believe. And yes, ten-plus years of discussions is quite formidable. But, if a person is serious, it is a place to start catching up. Thank you, Dan Cheers and over and out, Mark On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:54 AM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dan, Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle that I have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know what SOM is by definition. When is it that something enters into the SOM realm? There seems to be a lot of grey area which you are not describing. When are we actually using SOM and when are we not? What is the boundary that defines one from the other? Is there philosophy going on in a mystical state where there is no separation? If so, how does this happen? How are we able to translate such an experience otherwise? The intellect may have many components that are not intellectual, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. A description, in metaphysical terms of its arising would be most useful. It appears that Marsha is attempting to define such boundaries. Could you please define yours, and stop being so silly about it? I would like to see you defend your rationale without resorting to some nonsensical not this not that. Dan: Mark,
Re: [MD] Step One
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:09 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: In order for me to understand MOQ I believe an understanding of the terms is necessary, some thought that goes into the source of concepts such as SOM. Things arise for a reason. In my recent response to A from Sweden, I proposed something concerning words. Any response to that would be most welcome as well. Hi Mark, Your simple, direct questions are good ones and deserve simple, direct answers. In the Metaphysics of Quality, the source of concepts such as SOM is Dynamic Quality. DQ is the source of all things. It is the creative moral force. Things arise from DQ for the reason that they are better. They are more moral than what existed before. The starting point of the MOQ, it's initial premise that cannot be denied without contradiction, is simply that Some things are better than others. Best, Platt 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
Re: [MD] Step One
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:09 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dan, Thanks. My apologies, I will take a few deep breaths before I respond in the future. I will certainly do my best to get current. As something of a newcomer, I will ask questions. My questions to you in the post concerning your dismissal of Marsha, which you responded to, were sincere. Perhaps when you have a chance you could respond to them. In order for me to understand MOQ I believe an understanding of the terms is necessary, some thought that goes into the source of concepts such as SOM. Things arise for a reason. In my recent response to A from Sweden, I proposed something concerning words. Any response to that would be most welcome as well. Hi Mark As I explained, your questions are meaningless in terms of the MOQ. Subject/object metaphysics is a collection of intellectual patterns of value that state reality is composed of a subject observing objects. Period. There is no room for values. In ZMM, Phaedrus goes to great lengths to show how Quality doesn't reside in either subject or object. It precedes them. Quality is left undefined. In LILA, Phaedrus decides to define Quality anyway... he compares his efforts to trying to keep the fat man out of the frig. Dynamic Quality is undefined while static quality is left in its wake. Dynamic Quality is what's better... not this, not that, as he puts it in LILA'S CHILD. Static quality is divided into four levels... Phaedrus says that if we were to construct an encyclopedia, everything would be contained within the four levels... every thing that is, except Dynamic Quality, which isn't a thing at all. In the MOQ, reality starts with experience. There is no reason why anything arises. The source and the destination of static quality patterns of value is Dynamic Quality. We are constantly defining Quality yet it can never be fully defined. It is inexhaustible. In ZMM, Phaedrus uses the term Quality Event to denote the source of subjects and objects, but in LILA, he abandons the term. Dynamic Quality is primary while static quality patterns of value are left in its wake. Still later, Robert Pirsig says that he saw how subjects and objects could be mapped onto the MOQ... subjects refer to social and intellectual patterns, while objects refer to inorganic and biological patterns. In this way, he marries philosophical idealism and scientific materialism under the umbrella of Quality. He states that there is no reason to get rid of the terms subject and object as long as it is remembered they refer to patterns of value, not to subject/object metaphysics. Now, my problem with Marsha (and Bodvar, of course) is her insistence that the intellectual level of the MOQ is identical to subject/object metaphysics. If you have followed what I said above, perhaps you can see the problem. Over ten years ago, Anthony McWatt confronted Bodvar on how SOM could be the intellectual level of the MOQ when Robert Pirsig indicates otherwise. Marsha's standard response is like Bodvar's... Robert Pirsig is wrong about his own metaphysics and their formulation is the one, true MOQ. Anyway, perhaps you can see how deeply this goes, and why my attempting an explanation really doesn't begin to touch the surface. But it is all there to read in the archives. It is a valuable resource, in my opinion, and not a cop-out as some might lead you to believe. And yes, ten-plus years of discussions is quite formidable. But, if a person is serious, it is a place to start catching up. Thank you, Dan Hi Dan, Thank you for providing me with a short description of your interpretation of Quality. I will certainly file it. You may, or may not know that I joined MOQ discuss in 2008. I'm not sure what qualifies as newcomer, but I am fine with that beginners mind (reference to Suzuki and Zen). I read ZAMM in 1973, and thus helped to make it a bestseller. It caught the people's imagination and was even discussed in a philosophy class I took back then. Perhaps you read it at the same time, if so we have spent an equal amount of time thinking about Quality. Back in 2009 I wrote an essay in this forum in tribute to Pirsig and the impact that ZAMM had on me and friends at the time. I was also a little critical on what it was becoming. The release of Lila did not receive near the amount of following even though many who bought ZAMM put out the money. I think you know why. Anyway, from that essay I wrote, I received some commendations from members, such as Platt. You did not reply, and I just assumed that you hadn't read it. I also had numerous discussions with Bodvar from which I benefited greatly. I have had many discussions with Ham over the years, and we enthusiastically agree to disagree on certain subjects. His appreciation of Quality is indeed deep,
Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Horse, Thanks for the reminder, and I do consult the archives. I just sent a professional response to Dan thanking him for the information. Perhaps you could direct me to certain critical subject headings that you feel would help me out. I will await your response. Thanks again, Mark (member since 2008) On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote: Mark As Dan says, you haven't, apparently, been around long enough yet to grasp what's going on here and his suggestion that you consult the archives, Anthony's work etc. is very apt. What Dan has said is plain good sense and is said without being rude unlike your reply. Cheers Horse On 24/10/2010 15:16, Dan Glover wrote: Mark, you obviously have A LOT of catching up to do before we can hold a reasonable discussion. Subject/object metaphysics holds that there are only a subject observing objects. Period. Reading your posts, I don't see that you've grasped that. When you ask: When is it that something enters the SOM realm... something doesn't enter the SOM realm. There isn't something out there called SOM. That is the fallacy that Robert Pirsig tried to correct with his Metaphysics of Quality. And for the record, I am not being silly. It is your lack of understanding that makes it seem so. Next thing you'll be calling me a retard, I suppose. Not this, not that has nothing to do with the definition of the intellectual level. Honestly, I am not teacher, Mark. I have very little patience with people who bounce in on their high horse spouting how smart they are. A good scientist would do the research... read the archives for starters... read Anthony McWatt's work... read LILA and ZMM... and if you claim to have read them, read them again. You haven't got the message. Dan On 24/10/2010 15:54, 118 wrote: [Mark] Hi Dan, Is that all you've got? Hmmm...Intellectual indeed. Is that what you call answers? Well, then, my only response is: Go back to your master, you effing rottweiler! You want it your way, there's a nice big bowl of dog food waiting for you under the table, snarf it up, it will make you happy. Stop your pathetic snarling on these airwaves! Don't come back until you have something productive to bark about! Go now, shoo,shoo. That's a good boy. Mark -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. — Frank Zappa 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Andre, [Andre previously in an attack on Marsha, most expletives removed, but caution!]: Let me put it another way: the inorganic level is a station through which the organic level is made possible ( yes, by all means use a railway station). The organic level is a station through which the social level is made possible and the social station is the level through which the intellectual level is made possible. All levels are connected, all level communicate with each other. [Andre previously] If level one (the inorganic) says to the rest:'No way fellas then nothing will happen. If you are preparing for, and delivering you thesis and the second level says:'Man, you gotta pee or shit' this will sabotage all of your intellectual intentions!You will not be able to perform unless you attend to its requirements and needs. ( I am not sure how the social level will react to you if you deliver your thesis without any clothes on but I do know that it will detract the attention off what you try, intellectually, to present). [Mark] Yes, Andre, this is a bottoms up approach. I am not sure I agree with it. There is also the top down approach which could begin with Emptiness. The bottom up approach is certainly much easier to understand and state, since the levels seem to be structured going up as written. No doubt, the direction could be considered upward. If one invokes current science and our understanding of time, it is also possible to view the levels as you state. But, we still have much to learn, especially in a metaphysical approach. Science does not necessarily need to be invoked, it could have it completely wrong, it is just a description. [Mark] The direction could also be considered downward if we use your staircase. Many ascribe consciousness as that which creates all other. In its human interpretation, consciousness as intellect would be the simplest form or level. One cannot create all the rest without intellect; as Ham would say (I think), it differentiates. Intellect could then result in SOM as a product, intellect is also required for mystical experiences, so SOM does not necessarily have to be alone. SOM would differentiate into society, then biology, then the rest. There is no doubt that the interaction (or flux if you wish) of the inorganic is much more complex than that of the intellect. I believe that complexity stems from simplicity in a fractal kind of way. We choose to complicate or break up pure experience. [Andre] All I am saying is that all is in a steady, static, stable flux. But for the adherents of the SOM/SOL shit to suggest that the intellectual level is a fixed, bolted, welded level, it sure as hell posits as discounting all Mr. Pirsig is standing for: Quality...because it is an event...it is pure experience [Mark] How is flux stable? Are you saying that it repeats itself, pulses, or is circular? Are you talking about a closed universe? What's outside? In my opinion, the intellectual level is as bolted as all the other levels. Are you saying it is not a level? I do not find this discounting, it is a description; I think Pirsig would agree with this (but what do I know). And I wouldn't call Quality an event, if anything it creates events. As always, just MHO Cheers, Mark 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
Re: [MD] Step One
On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:44 PM, 118 wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:42 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:27 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:03 PM, 118 wrote: Marsha: I never stated that the MoQ could be described by neti-neti. I was saying to Dan that all this talk it not Quality(Ultimate Truth). I do not understand your complaint? Mark: My complaint was that I do not understand what you are saying. Could all this talk be considered attempts at a metaphysical description of Quality? I have not read all of your correspondence with Dan on this subject, so perhaps I should not just jump in. I will try to get full understanding before I just take a statement and run with it, so as not to waste your time. I can see you are getting frustrated with my inane questions and I beg your forgiveness. Gracias (as John would say). Hi Mark, Sorry, Mark, maybe you are projecting your frustration on to me. I was suggesting to Dan with my words 'not this, not that' that when all is said and done, if I may use an analogy; the words on the menu are not the food. Please feel free to explain neti-neti to your liking. Marsha Mark: Yes you are correct, frustration on my part. I wasn't projecting it on you, I was trying to explain why I was asking questions. Perhaps I need to change the way I frame them. Yes, words are an analogy as Phaedrus stated in ZAMM, that is a given in this forum. I looked up the word analogy on Dictionary.com to see if it would help me explain. Definitions 5 is: 5. Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. I inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? What I am asking now, is: what are the known respective properties of Quality? Mark, Marsha: Naked (unpatterned experience/patterned experience); that is as deep as I have experienced Quality. It is awesome realizations that I have never found adequately expressed by words or things, even wonderful words and paintings. Though words and paintings may initiate such experience. So can simple events. It is being the unknown, undivided and undefined. To be forced to pick out one or two such incidences seems like a Sophie's choice. You can send me a picture if that would help, so long as you add some descriptive (not encrypted) words. I do not do well with riddles. No riddles? But there is nothing to say or see that is not a riddle. I wish I could bring you the moon... But, there, it is outside your window, Mark. Go let the moon shine moonlight on your face. Marsha Hi Marsha, I like what you posted. Riddles within riddles. I was speaking to the more conventional sort. Metaphysics (IMHO) attempts at bringing meaning to the unknown in the same way that science does. It expands the frontiers of (so called) understanding, which is pattern-making to include the unknown into the intellect. Words of description, what we call knowledge (and not the instinctual knowledge, what ever that is...instinct is another pattern in itself to describe the unknowable) is the tool. The MoQ seems a scaffolding to transcend subject/object thinking, and a bridge between East and West. At least that what it seems to me. You often use the Patterning Principle as example. A while back I read the word constellation which as you recall I challenged. Well, attack mode has been switched to neutral. As I think you have said, the brain creates patterns from the unpatterned and converts it into an SOM dialogue. The unpatterned is that which has not yet been converted. Static patterns are what have emerged from the continuous changing flow of now. Discussing the MoQ is an intellectual process, words about the MoQ, but not the experience of the MoQ(Realty = Quality(unpatterned experience/ patterned experience.)) I think I understand your proposition of pure undefined experience as a form of quality, the unpatterned until it becomes patterned as an experience. This is analogous to Ham's differentiation. That you use a slash implies an interrelationship between the two. I am delving into that relationship (in a patterning way). Using your Patterning Principle, as I do for Ham's Differentiation. Are DQ and sq the same, or interdependent? From my point-of-view, they are the same. To understand a metaphysics based on that principle takes a little more than pointing to direct experience, it takes the formulation of that experience in a mutually sharable format. So, to now ask
Re: [MD] Step One
On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, 118 wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? Marsha: The point is I don't talk about it. Using intellect to talk about Quality, reifies it, and it is not this, not that. I experience it as unpatterned, and patterned flow, after that nothing fits well. If you want to talk about Intellectual Level patterns, or Social Level patterns, or Biological Level patterns, or Inorganic Level patterns, I think there is lots to consider and discuss. The point is that while you do not talk about it, you certainly write about it, unless you are in the wrong forum. Your description of experience is shorthand at best There are at least four words there that need interpretation (and one of those is not I, which can also be included). So, let's talk about the expression of quality in the subjects you reference above. You can consider it not really talking about Quality if that makes more sense to you. Mark Hi Mark, The Dynamic aspect of Quality is unknowable, indivisible, undefinable. Static patterns of value are ever-changing, relative, impermanent habit that is able to be conceptualized. The four levels are interrupted and defined with slight differences dependent on an individuals past static pattern history. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Correct interrupted to be interpreted. On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, 118 wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? Marsha: The point is I don't talk about it. Using intellect to talk about Quality, reifies it, and it is not this, not that. I experience it as unpatterned, and patterned flow, after that nothing fits well. If you want to talk about Intellectual Level patterns, or Social Level patterns, or Biological Level patterns, or Inorganic Level patterns, I think there is lots to consider and discuss. The point is that while you do not talk about it, you certainly write about it, unless you are in the wrong forum. Your description of experience is shorthand at best There are at least four words there that need interpretation (and one of those is not I, which can also be included). So, let's talk about the expression of quality in the subjects you reference above. You can consider it not really talking about Quality if that makes more sense to you. Mark Hi Mark, The Dynamic aspect of Quality is unknowable, indivisible, undefinable. Static patterns of value are ever-changing, relative, impermanent habit that is able to be conceptualized. The four levels are interpreted and defined with slight differences dependent on an individuals past static pattern history. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Mark to Andre: Yes, Andre, this is a bottoms up approach. I am not sure I agree with it. How is flux stable? Andre: Yes Mark, you did well to place loads of question marks to this post as, having re-read, it is very poorly written. Please just disregard it as I think that similar issues which motivated me to write this in the first place will undoubtedly come up again. One thing though, when you say: 'And I wouldn't call Quality an event, if anything it creates events'. I would refer you to ZMM p 233: 'Quality is not a thing. It is an event...Quality is the event at which awareness of both subjects and objects is made possible. And on p245: 'Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it'. Needless to say that in LILA Phaedrus has re-defined 'subjects' and 'objects' as patterns of value. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Mark, Here is how I interpret, based on how they function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:40 AM, MarshaV wrote: Correct interrupted to be interpreted. On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, 118 wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? Marsha: The point is I don't talk about it. Using intellect to talk about Quality, reifies it, and it is not this, not that. I experience it as unpatterned, and patterned flow, after that nothing fits well. If you want to talk about Intellectual Level patterns, or Social Level patterns, or Biological Level patterns, or Inorganic Level patterns, I think there is lots to consider and discuss. The point is that while you do not talk about it, you certainly write about it, unless you are in the wrong forum. Your description of experience is shorthand at best There are at least four words there that need interpretation (and one of those is not I, which can also be included). So, let's talk about the expression of quality in the subjects you reference above. You can consider it not really talking about Quality if that makes more sense to you. Mark Hi Mark, The Dynamic aspect of Quality is unknowable, indivisible, undefinable. Static patterns of value are ever-changing, relative, impermanent habit that is able to be conceptualized. The four levels are interpreted and defined with slight differences dependent on an individuals past static pattern history. 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 ___ 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Yes, ! 'Quality is not a thing. It is an event...Quality is the event at which awareness of both subjects and objects is made possible. Thx for rolling this one in, Andre, will make me feel better again, I had a bad day. Adrie. 2010/10/23 Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com Mark to Andre: Yes, Andre, this is a bottoms up approach. I am not sure I agree with it. How is flux stable? Andre: Yes Mark, you did well to place loads of question marks to this post as, having re-read, it is very poorly written. Please just disregard it as I think that similar issues which motivated me to write this in the first place will undoubtedly come up again. One thing though, when you say: 'And I wouldn't call Quality an event, if anything it creates events'. I would refer you to ZMM p 233: 'Quality is not a thing. It is an event...Quality is the event at which awareness of both subjects and objects is made possible. And on p245: 'Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it'. Needless to say that in LILA Phaedrus has re-defined 'subjects' and 'objects' as patterns of value. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Andre, Some comments below for discussion. On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.comwrote: Mark to Andre: Yes, Andre, this is a bottoms up approach. I am not sure I agree with it. How is flux stable? Andre: Yes Mark, you did well to place loads of question marks to this post as, having re-read, it is very poorly written. Please just disregard it as I think that similar issues which motivated me to write this in the first place will undoubtedly come up again. [Mark] Sorry if my command of grammar is not up to snuff. I wouldn't get into a grammar debate if I were you. Yes, it did just come up, you brought it up. I was discussing it, you do not have to discuss it if you care not to, I understand. So, how is flux stable? One thing though, when you say: 'And I wouldn't call Quality an event, if anything it creates events'. I would refer you to ZMM p 233: 'Quality is not a thing. It is an event...Quality is the event at which awareness of both subjects and objects is made possible. [Mark] Good quote, perhaps the grammar is not very leading there... Yes, Quality is THE event if you want to put it that way. The term event has many philosophical synonyms. My opinion is that you are not using it in the right way. I would prefer the term wedstrijd to gebeurtenis. And on p245: 'Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it'. [Mark] Yes, it creates events. Stimulus is appropriate if we are the stimulated. Please note that it also says that we create the world, all of it, and are not created by it. This would support my so called top down suggestion. Needless to say that in LILA Phaedrus has re-defined 'subjects' and 'objects' as patterns of value. [Mark] How would you define patterns of value? Just asking so that I can converse with you. Thanks, Mark 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Marsha, Thanks for your help in my search. I found the following web page on decontexualization. http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/decontext2.html Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Hi Mark, Here is how I interpret, based on how they function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:40 AM, MarshaV wrote: Correct interrupted to be interpreted. On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, 118 wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? Marsha: The point is I don't talk about it. Using intellect to talk about Quality, reifies it, and it is not this, not that. I experience it as unpatterned, and patterned flow, after that nothing fits well. If you want to talk about Intellectual Level patterns, or Social Level patterns, or Biological Level patterns, or Inorganic Level patterns, I think there is lots to consider and discuss. The point is that while you do not talk about it, you certainly write about it, unless you are in the wrong forum. Your description of experience is shorthand at best There are at least four words there that need interpretation (and one of those is not I, which can also be included). So, let's talk about the expression of quality in the subjects you reference above. You can consider it not really talking about Quality if that makes more sense to you. Mark Hi Mark, The Dynamic aspect of Quality is unknowable, indivisible, undefinable. Static patterns of value are ever-changing, relative, impermanent habit that is able to be conceptualized. The four levels are interpreted and defined with slight differences dependent on an individuals past static pattern history. 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 ___ 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
Re: [MD] Step One
On Oct 23, 2010, at 12:55 PM, 118 wrote: Hi Marsha, Thanks for your help in my search. I found the following web page on decontexualization. http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/decontext2.html Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Hi Mark, Here is how I interpret, based on how they function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:40 AM, MarshaV wrote: Correct interrupted to be interpreted. On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, 118 wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? Marsha: The point is I don't talk about it. Using intellect to talk about Quality, reifies it, and it is not this, not that. I experience it as unpatterned, and patterned flow, after that nothing fits well. If you want to talk about Intellectual Level patterns, or Social Level patterns, or Biological Level patterns, or Inorganic Level patterns, I think there is lots to consider and discuss. The point is that while you do not talk about it, you certainly write about it, unless you are in the wrong forum. Your description of experience is shorthand at best There are at least four words there that need interpretation (and one of those is not I, which can also be included). So, let's talk about the expression of quality in the subjects you reference above. You can consider it not really talking about Quality if that makes more sense to you. Mark Hi Mark, The Dynamic aspect of Quality is unknowable, indivisible, undefinable. Static patterns of value are ever-changing, relative, impermanent habit that is able to be conceptualized. The four levels are interpreted and defined with slight differences dependent on an individuals past static pattern history. 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 ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Mark, I didn't think much of of the web pages. For me decontextualize means removing and isolating a process from it's interdependencies to make it an object of analysis. Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 12:55 PM, 118 wrote: Hi Marsha, Thanks for your help in my search. I found the following web page on decontexualization. http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/decontext2.html Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Hi Mark, Here is how I interpret, based on how they function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:40 AM, MarshaV wrote: Correct interrupted to be interpreted. On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, 118 wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? Marsha: The point is I don't talk about it. Using intellect to talk about Quality, reifies it, and it is not this, not that. I experience it as unpatterned, and patterned flow, after that nothing fits well. If you want to talk about Intellectual Level patterns, or Social Level patterns, or Biological Level patterns, or Inorganic Level patterns, I think there is lots to consider and discuss. The point is that while you do not talk about it, you certainly write about it, unless you are in the wrong forum. Your description of experience is shorthand at best There are at least four words there that need interpretation (and one of those is not I, which can also be included). So, let's talk about the expression of quality in the subjects you reference above. You can consider it not really talking about Quality if that makes more sense to you. Mark Hi Mark, The Dynamic aspect of Quality is unknowable, indivisible, undefinable. Static patterns of value are ever-changing, relative, impermanent habit that is able to be conceptualized. The four levels are interpreted and defined with slight differences dependent on an individuals past static pattern history. 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 ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Marsha to Mark: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a ?thing? or an ?object of analysis.? The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Andre: This was a program brought to you by valky-Rat.com, (sponsored by a Scandinavian soap producer) who is apparently still unaware of what William James wrote more than 142 years ago. She doesn't like James, she doesn't like radical empiricism but still, these were the days before James had fully worked out his ideas, not based on the armchair bouncing idea against idea. No. He bounced ideas against his own, his student's and colleague's and other's experiences as they were related to him directly, through letters, anecdotes or his own scientific investigations in the lab. Just a apropos: the MOQ subscribes to pragmatism and radical empiricism. James called his paper:'The Sentiment of Rationality' in which he proposes an exploration of the action of consciousness. Please remember that 'consciousness' is designated in the MOQ as 'intellectual patterns'... as the 'collection and manipulation of symbols created in the brain that stand for patterns of experience' (Annotn 32). The intellectual level therefore indicates 'action'. James argues that 'rationality is at bottom a feeling' ( keep in mind Phaedrus' pre-intellectual romantic fused with classical reflection bit). Also remember that James was at the beginning of trying to formulate this dawning awareness. He says: [rationality] ' Not a matter of logic or math, not reasoning or ratios, not induction, deduction, or syllogism, not something higher than and detached from the senses, not the opposite of a feeling or emotion -rationality itself is a feeling or emotion'. (William James. In the Maelstrom of American Modernism, Robert D. Richardson, p184) But, of course it is not just pure biology. The MOQ adds a sense of intellectual quality, an aesthetic appreciation of beauty, the recognition of the affective role (pre-intellectual) part. James shows his sensitivity and brilliance in this paper through relating his experience (and not seeing it as purely personal but recognizing it) as a universal attribute of humanity. What this oft repeated valky-Rat program leaves us with is that the intellectual level is not capable of recognizing elegance, harmony, beauty. It is not capable of recognizing values, morality, quality. This is SOM propaganda. We are not talking SOM! We are talking MOQ. It appears to me that this program is hopelessly out of date by at least some 150 years...event hough Heraclitus had a pretty good 'feel' of things as well when he suggested that you cannot step into the same river twice. This program reifies the river, it reifies experience, it reifies DQ into sq. This program is indeed out of date through the ignorance of its own invention which is based on nothing. Alas. Keep on meditating...OhhhMmmm. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
This threefold dependence is not intuitively obvious, for it is concealed by the appearance of phenomena as being self-sufficient and independent of conceptual designation. On the basis of these misleading appearances it is quite natural to think of, or conceptually apprehend, phenomena as self-defining things in themselves. This tendency is known as reification, and according to the Madhyamaka view, this is an inborn delusion that provides the basis for a host of mental afflictions. Reification decontextualizes. It views phenomena without regard to the causal nexus in which they arise, and without regard to the specific means of observation and conceptualization by which they are known. The Madhyamaka, or Centrist, view is so called because it seeks to avoid the two extremes of reifying phenomena on the one hand, and of denying the existence of phenomena on the other. Parrots squawk and peoples think. Echo's fate and Narcissus' link. Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:55:34 -0700 From: ununocti...@gmail.com To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org Subject: Re: [MD] Step One Hi Marsha, Thanks for your help in my search. I found the following web page on decontexualization. http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/decontext2.html Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Hi Mark, Here is how I interpret, based on how they function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:40 AM, MarshaV wrote: Correct interrupted to be interpreted. On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, 118 wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? Marsha: The point is I don't talk about it. Using intellect to talk about Quality, reifies it, and it is not this, not that. I experience it as unpatterned, and patterned flow, after that nothing fits well. If you want to talk about Intellectual Level patterns, or Social Level patterns, or Biological Level patterns, or Inorganic Level patterns, I think there is lots to consider and discuss. The point is that while you do not talk about it, you certainly write about it, unless you are in the wrong forum. Your description of experience is shorthand at best There are at least four words there that need interpretation (and one of those is not I, which can also be included). So, let's talk about the expression of quality in the subjects you reference above. You can consider it not really talking about Quality if that makes more sense to you. Mark Hi Mark, The Dynamic aspect of Quality is unknowable, indivisible, undefinable. Static patterns of value are ever-changing, relative, impermanent habit that is able to be conceptualized. The four levels are interpreted and defined with slight differences dependent on an individuals past static pattern history. 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 ___ 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 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http
Re: [MD] Step One
Anthony writes: “Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and, trial by jury. It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while Quality is seen as absolute. In consequence, the truth is defined as the highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time. (McWatt,Anthony,MOQ Textbook) Give me a r: R Give me a e:E Give me a l: L Give me an a: A Give me a t: T Give me an i:I Give me a v: V Give me an e: E What does it spell? Relative. What does it spell? Relative!!! What does it spell? RELATIVE!!! Yay! On Oct 23, 2010, at 1:35 PM, david buchanan wrote: This threefold dependence is not intuitively obvious, for it is concealed by the appearance of phenomena as being self-sufficient and independent of conceptual designation. On the basis of these misleading appearances it is quite natural to think of, or conceptually apprehend, phenomena as self-defining things in themselves. This tendency is known as reification, and according to the Madhyamaka view, this is an inborn delusion that provides the basis for a host of mental afflictions. Reification decontextualizes. It views phenomena without regard to the causal nexus in which they arise, and without regard to the specific means of observation and conceptualization by which they are known. The Madhyamaka, or Centrist, view is so called because it seeks to avoid the two extremes of reifying phenomena on the one hand, and of denying the existence of phenomena on the other. Parrots squawk and peoples think. Echo's fate and Narcissus' link. Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:55:34 -0700 From: ununocti...@gmail.com To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org Subject: Re: [MD] Step One Hi Marsha, Thanks for your help in my search. I found the following web page on decontexualization. http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/decontext2.html Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Hi Mark, Here is how I interpret, based on how they function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:40 AM, MarshaV wrote: Correct interrupted to be interpreted. On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, 118 wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? Marsha: The point is I don't talk about it. Using intellect to talk about Quality, reifies it, and it is not this, not that. I experience it as unpatterned, and patterned flow, after that nothing fits well. If you want to talk about Intellectual Level patterns, or Social Level patterns, or Biological Level patterns, or Inorganic Level patterns, I think there is lots to consider and discuss. The point is that while you do not talk about it, you certainly write about it, unless you are in the wrong forum. Your description of experience is shorthand at best There are at least four words there that need interpretation (and one of those is not I, which can also be included). So, let's talk about the expression of quality in the subjects you reference above. You can consider it not really talking about Quality if that makes more sense to you. Mark Hi Mark, The Dynamic aspect of Quality is unknowable, indivisible, undefinable. Static patterns of value are ever-changing, relative, impermanent habit that is able to be conceptualized. The four levels are interpreted and defined with slight differences dependent on an individuals past static pattern history. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Greetings, Here is how I interpret, based on how the patterns function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 1:45 PM, MarshaV wrote: Anthony writes: “Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and, trial by jury. It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while Quality is seen as absolute. In consequence, the truth is defined as the highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time. (McWatt,Anthony,MOQ Textbook) Give me a r: R Give me a e:E Give me a l: L Give me an a: A Give me a t: T Give me an i:I Give me a v: V Give me an e: E What does it spell? Relative. What does it spell? Relative!!! What does it spell? RELATIVE!!! Yay! On Oct 23, 2010, at 1:35 PM, david buchanan wrote: This threefold dependence is not intuitively obvious, for it is concealed by the appearance of phenomena as being self-sufficient and independent of conceptual designation. On the basis of these misleading appearances it is quite natural to think of, or conceptually apprehend, phenomena as self-defining things in themselves. This tendency is known as reification, and according to the Madhyamaka view, this is an inborn delusion that provides the basis for a host of mental afflictions. Reification decontextualizes. It views phenomena without regard to the causal nexus in which they arise, and without regard to the specific means of observation and conceptualization by which they are known. The Madhyamaka, or Centrist, view is so called because it seeks to avoid the two extremes of reifying phenomena on the one hand, and of denying the existence of phenomena on the other. Parrots squawk and peoples think. Echo's fate and Narcissus' link. Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:55:34 -0700 From: ununocti...@gmail.com To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org Subject: Re: [MD] Step One Hi Marsha, Thanks for your help in my search. I found the following web page on decontexualization. http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/decontext2.html Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Hi Mark, Here is how I interpret, based on how they function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:40 AM, MarshaV wrote: Correct interrupted to be interpreted. On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, 118 wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? Marsha: The point is I don't talk about it. Using intellect to talk about Quality, reifies it, and it is not this, not that. I experience it as unpatterned, and patterned flow, after that nothing fits well. If you want to talk about Intellectual Level patterns, or Social Level patterns, or Biological Level patterns, or Inorganic Level patterns, I think there is lots to consider and discuss. The point is that while you do not talk about
Re: [MD] Step One
Marsha, I think you've had more than your two posts a day regarding the SOL. As a reminder to folks on this list, SOM as the Intellectual Level (SOL) is restricted to a maximum of two posts per day per member. Please bear this in mind. Horse On 23/10/2010 18:52, MarshaV wrote: Greetings, Here is how I interpret, based on how the patterns function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. — Frank Zappa 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Greetings Horse, I am not discussing the SOL, it my view of the Intellectual Level based on reification. I don't believe Bo ever used the word reification. Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Horse wrote: Marsha, I think you've had more than your two posts a day regarding the SOL. As a reminder to folks on this list, SOM as the Intellectual Level (SOL) is restricted to a maximum of two posts per day per member. Please bear this in mind. Horse On 23/10/2010 18:52, MarshaV wrote: Greetings, Here is how I interpret, based on how the patterns function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. — Frank Zappa 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
Re: [MD] Step One
However you word it Marsha, SOM as the Intellectual level is SOL. Whether it's by the front or the back door. Two posts a day. That's the limit, please observe it. Horse On 23/10/2010 19:00, MarshaV wrote: Greetings Horse, I am not discussing the SOL, it my view of the Intellectual Level based on reification. I don't believe Bo ever used the word reification. Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Horse wrote: Marsha, I think you've had more than your two posts a day regarding the SOL. As a reminder to folks on this list, SOM as the Intellectual Level (SOL) is restricted to a maximum of two posts per day per member. Please bear this in mind. Horse On 23/10/2010 18:52, MarshaV wrote: Greetings, Here is how I interpret, based on how the patterns function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. — Frank Zappa 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 -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. — Frank Zappa 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Mark to Andre: Sorry if my command of grammar is not up to snuff. I wouldn't get into a grammar debate if I were you. Yes, it did just come up, you brought it up. I was discussing it, you do not have to discuss it if you care not to, I understand. So, how is flux stable? Andre: Nothing wrong with your grammar Mark. The 'flux' I meant to designate is better understood as 'vibrating'. If it is fixed it cannot change. Stability does not mean 'fixed'. It means stably vibrating...until something better comes along. Mark: Good quote, perhaps the grammar is not very leading there... Yes, Qualityis THE event if you want to put it that way. The term event has many philosophical synonyms. My opinion is that you are not using it in the right way. I would prefer the term wedstrijd to gebeurtenis. Andre: A very good observation, and I have thought long and hard to describe the 'event' and concluded that the Dutch rendition of the word 'event' in the way that the MOQ requires it is not 'gebeurtenis' but 'beleving'. This seems to me more direct and a truer representation. (You may disagree) Mark: How would you define patterns of value? Just asking so that I can converse with you. Andre: Well, I thought we are already conversing so there must be some value recognized (without wanting to be a smart-arse) Patterns of value are what they point to: abstractions of Quality based on valuations, on what is best, on what 'feels' right, on what can help us improve, on what is beauty, on what brings us closer into harmony with all, on what is desperately crying out for recognition. They are valuations, and not just personal ones (otherwise they would not be included...for the time being...). These are valuations shared by all of us. As much 'inner' as 'outer' making up our cultural heritage and universal origins. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Marsha said: ... Reification decontextualizes. [and] For me decontextualize means removing and isolating a process from it's interdependencies to make it an object of analysis. dmb says: Your use of these terms is very confusing. In fact, it seems you don't really understand what they mean or how they're used. There is a better word for the meaning you've assign to decontextualization, for example. If we're talking about ideas, to remove and isolate for the purpose of analysis is what we call an abstraction or generalization or conceptualization. And it's a very handy thing. Abstractions and concepts are not reifications. Reification is a fallacy, an error, the mistake of confusing abstract concepts with concrete realities. Reification is a matter of confusing thoughts and things, of mistaking ideas for actual, ontological realities. And what does decontextualize actually mean? It depends on the context. (Mark's link was irrelevant. Different context, different meaning.) Sadly, you aren't using decontextualize properly even when we consider the original context from which you apparently took it. Prof. B. Alan Wallace offers a Centrist view. Not only does this view reject the notion that the mind is an inherently existent substance, or thing, but it similarly denies that physical phenomena as we experience them are things in themselves. That means he rejects the assumptions of subject-object metaphysics. Like the MOQ, there is no substantial dualism between mind and matter because the ways in which we conceive of phenomena are inescapably related to our concepts and languages. Like James and Pirsig, Wallace departs from both the substantial dualism of Descartes and the substantial monism that seems to be characteristic of modern Materialism, or Physicalism. The article continuest... ...Much is made of this difference between appearances and reality. The Madhyamaka view also emphasizes the disparity between appearances and reality, but in a radically different way. All the mental and physical phenomena that we experience, it declares, appear as if they existed in and of themselves, utterly independent of our modes of perception and conception. They appear to be things in themselves, but in reality they exist as dependently related events. Their dependence is threefold: 1) phenomena arise in dependence upon preceding causal influences, 2) they exist in dependence upon their own parts and/or attributes, and 3) the phenomena that make up the world of our experience are dependent upon our verbal and conceptual designation of them. This threefold dependence is not intuitively obvious, for it is concealed by the appearance of phenomena as being self-sufficient and independent of conceptual designation. On the basis of these misleading appearances it is quite natural to think of, or conceptually apprehend, phenomena as self-defining things in themselves. This tendency is known as reification, and according to the Madhyamaka view, this is an inborn delusion that provides the basis for a host of mental afflictions. Reification decontextualizes. It views phenomena without regard to the causal nexus in which they arise, and without regard to the specific means of observation and conceptualization by which they are known. The Madhyamaka, or Centrist, view is so called because it seeks to avoid the two extremes of reifying phenomena on the one hand, and of denying the existence of phenomena on the other. And here are some ordinary definitions of the key terms reify |ˈrēəˌfī|verb ( -fies, -fied) [ trans. ] formal, make (something abstract) more concrete or real : Reification (also known as hypostatisation, concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a real thing something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase holds another's affection, is taken literally, affection would be reified. Note that reification is generally accepted in literature and other forms of discourse where reified abstractions are understood to be intended metaphorically, but the use of reification in logical arguments is usually regarded as a mistake (fallacy). For example, Justice is blind; the blind cannot read printed laws; therefore, to print laws cannot serve justice. In rhetoric, it may be sometimes difficult to determine if reification was used correctly or incorrectly. Etymology From Latin res thing + facere to make, reification can be 'translated' as thing-making; the turning of something abstract into a concrete thing or object. abstraction |abˈstrak sh ən|noun1 the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events • something that exists only as an idea 2 freedom from representational qualities in art 3 a state of
Re: [MD] Step One
Sure Horse, as moderator it is you setting the rules.:-) On Oct 23, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Horse wrote: However you word it Marsha, SOM as the Intellectual level is SOL. Whether it's by the front or the back door. Two posts a day. That's the limit, please observe it. Horse On 23/10/2010 19:00, MarshaV wrote: Greetings Horse, I am not discussing the SOL, it my view of the Intellectual Level based on reification. I don't believe Bo ever used the word reification. Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Horse wrote: Marsha, I think you've had more than your two posts a day regarding the SOL. As a reminder to folks on this list, SOM as the Intellectual Level (SOL) is restricted to a maximum of two posts per day per member. Please bear this in mind. Horse On 23/10/2010 18:52, MarshaV wrote: Greetings, Here is how I interpret, based on how the patterns function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. — Frank Zappa 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 -- Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. — Frank Zappa 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
Re: [MD] Step One
dmb, Yawn... Alan Wallace uses it. He understand. You, I don't expect to understand. Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 2:38 PM, david buchanan wrote: Marsha said: ... Reification decontextualizes. [and] For me decontextualize means removing and isolating a process from it's interdependencies to make it an object of analysis. dmb says: Your use of these terms is very confusing. In fact, it seems you don't really understand what they mean or how they're used. There is a better word for the meaning you've assign to decontextualization, for example. If we're talking about ideas, to remove and isolate for the purpose of analysis is what we call an abstraction or generalization or conceptualization. And it's a very handy thing. Abstractions and concepts are not reifications. Reification is a fallacy, an error, the mistake of confusing abstract concepts with concrete realities. Reification is a matter of confusing thoughts and things, of mistaking ideas for actual, ontological realities. And what does decontextualize actually mean? It depends on the context. (Mark's link was irrelevant. Different context, different meaning.) Sadly, you aren't using decontextualize properly even when we consider the original context from which you apparently took it. Prof. B. Alan Wallace offers a Centrist view. Not only does this view reject the notion that the mind is an inherently existent substance, or thing, but it similarly denies that physical phenomena as we experience them are things in themselves. That means he rejects the assumptions of subject-object metaphysics. Like the MOQ, there is no substantial dualism between mind and matter because the ways in which we conceive of phenomena are inescapably related to our concepts and languages. Like James and Pirsig, Wallace departs from both the substantial dualism of Descartes and the substantial monism that seems to be characteristic of modern Materialism, or Physicalism. The article continuest... ...Much is made of this difference between appearances and reality. The Madhyamaka view also emphasizes the disparity between appearances and reality, but in a radically different way. All the mental and physical phenomena that we experience, it declares, appear as if they existed in and of themselves, utterly independent of our modes of perception and conception. They appear to be things in themselves, but in reality they exist as dependently related events. Their dependence is threefold: 1) phenomena arise in dependence upon preceding causal influences, 2) they exist in dependence upon their own parts and/or attributes, and 3) the phenomena that make up the world of our experience are dependent upon our verbal and conceptual designation of them. This threefold dependence is not intuitively obvious, for it is concealed by the appearance of phenomena as being self-sufficient and independent of conceptual designation. On the basis of these misleading appearances it is quite natural to think of, or conceptually apprehend, phenomena as self-defining things in themselves. This tendency is known as reification, and according to the Madhyamaka view, this is an inborn delusion that provides the basis for a host of mental afflictions. Reification decontextualizes. It views phenomena without regard to the causal nexus in which they arise, and without regard to the specific means of observation and conceptualization by which they are known. The Madhyamaka, or Centrist, view is so called because it seeks to avoid the two extremes of reifying phenomena on the one hand, and of denying the existence of phenomena on the other. And here are some ordinary definitions of the key terms reify |ˈrēəˌfī|verb ( -fies, -fied) [ trans. ] formal, make (something abstract) more concrete or real : Reification (also known as hypostatisation, concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a real thing something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase holds another's affection, is taken literally, affection would be reified. Note that reification is generally accepted in literature and other forms of discourse where reified abstractions are understood to be intended metaphorically, but the use of reification in logical arguments is usually regarded as a mistake (fallacy). For example, Justice is blind; the blind cannot read printed laws; therefore, to print laws cannot serve justice. In rhetoric, it may be sometimes difficult to determine if reification was used correctly or incorrectly. Etymology From Latin res thing + facere to make, reification can be 'translated' as thing-making; the turning of
Re: [MD] Step One
woeha!, Andre this was a program brought to you by.. WOEHA! Strange that Mark's Dutch apparently is still sharp enough for 'gebeurtenis' als event,probably he is still having the look and feel in his fingers. stunning quality in your postings , Andre,--quality-driven? 2010/10/23 Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com Marsha to Mark: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a ?thing? or an ?object of analysis.? The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Andre: This was a program brought to you by valky-Rat.com, (sponsored by a Scandinavian soap producer) who is apparently still unaware of what William James wrote more than 142 years ago. She doesn't like James, she doesn't like radical empiricism but still, these were the days before James had fully worked out his ideas, not based on the armchair bouncing idea against idea. No. He bounced ideas against his own, his student's and colleague's and other's experiences as they were related to him directly, through letters, anecdotes or his own scientific investigations in the lab. Just a apropos: the MOQ subscribes to pragmatism and radical empiricism. James called his paper:'The Sentiment of Rationality' in which he proposes an exploration of the action of consciousness. Please remember that 'consciousness' is designated in the MOQ as 'intellectual patterns'... as the 'collection and manipulation of symbols created in the brain that stand for patterns of experience' (Annotn 32). The intellectual level therefore indicates 'action'. James argues that 'rationality is at bottom a feeling' ( keep in mind Phaedrus' pre-intellectual romantic fused with classical reflection bit). Also remember that James was at the beginning of trying to formulate this dawning awareness. He says: [rationality] ' Not a matter of logic or math, not reasoning or ratios, not induction, deduction, or syllogism, not something higher than and detached from the senses, not the opposite of a feeling or emotion -rationality itself is a feeling or emotion'. (William James. In the Maelstrom of American Modernism, Robert D. Richardson, p184) But, of course it is not just pure biology. The MOQ adds a sense of intellectual quality, an aesthetic appreciation of beauty, the recognition of the affective role (pre-intellectual) part. James shows his sensitivity and brilliance in this paper through relating his experience (and not seeing it as purely personal but recognizing it) as a universal attribute of humanity. What this oft repeated valky-Rat program leaves us with is that the intellectual level is not capable of recognizing elegance, harmony, beauty. It is not capable of recognizing values, morality, quality. This is SOM propaganda. We are not talking SOM! We are talking MOQ. It appears to me that this program is hopelessly out of date by at least some 150 years...event hough Heraclitus had a pretty good 'feel' of things as well when he suggested that you cannot step into the same river twice. This program reifies the river, it reifies experience, it reifies DQ into sq. This program is indeed out of date through the ignorance of its own invention which is based on nothing. Alas. Keep on meditating...OhhhMmmm. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Adrie to Andre: woeha!, Andre this was a program brought to you by.. WOEHA! Strange that Mark's Dutch apparently is still sharp enough for 'gebeurtenis' als event,probably he is still having the look and feel in his fingers. stunning quality in your postings , Andre,--quality-driven? Andre: Thank you Adrie, even though I cannot quite remember the details of putting this together. Quality is the stimulus and destroys the subject every time. Quality is the continuing stimulus (ZMM,p345)... . At moments like these Quality has you and it is a thrill to realize (afterwards) that one can recognize the event as such and recognize that 'you' have very little to do with the event at all. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.comwrote: Mark to Andre: Sorry if my command of grammar is not up to snuff. I wouldn't get into a grammar debate if I were you. Yes, it did just come up, you brought it up. I was discussing it, you do not have to discuss it if you care not to, I understand. So, how is flux stable? Andre: Nothing wrong with your grammar Mark. The 'flux' I meant to designate is better understood as 'vibrating'. If it is fixed it cannot change. Stability does not mean 'fixed'. It means stably vibrating...until something better comes along. [Mark] Yea, I like vibrating. It can created harmonics like the levels, I agree with that. String theory is useful, but there are way too many dimensions for me. Seems a bit suspect. Mark: Good quote, perhaps the grammar is not very leading there... Yes, Qualityis THE event if you want to put it that way. The term event has many philosophical synonyms. My opinion is that you are not using it in the right way. I would prefer the term wedstrijd to gebeurtenis. Andre: A very good observation, and I have thought long and hard to describe the 'event' and concluded that the Dutch rendition of the word 'event' in the way that the MOQ requires it is not 'gebeurtenis' but 'beleving'. This seems to me more direct and a truer representation. (You may disagree) [Mark] Believing is good, I prefer playing like in the vedic lila. Mark: How would you define patterns of value? Just asking so that I can converse with you. Andre: Well, I thought we are already conversing so there must be some value recognized (without wanting to be a smart-arse) Patterns of value are what they point to: abstractions of Quality based on valuations, on what is best, on what 'feels' right, on what can help us improve, on what is beauty, on what brings us closer into harmony with all, on what is desperately crying out for recognition. They are valuations, and not just personal ones (otherwise they would not be included...for the time being...). These are valuations shared by all of us. As much 'inner' as 'outer' making up our cultural heritage and universal origins. [Mark] OK, this gives me a basis to go on. I'll try to get this old brain into gear. Best, Mark 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Marsha, OK, got it. Thanks. The reason I ask into process is that as a scientist I am interested in forming a concept based on transcription, translation, and assembly. As you probably know, this is the genetic model, and, as above so below. That is, DNA to RNA (transcription), RNA to protein (translation), and protein to organism (assembly). Yes, it is only yet another concept for metaphysics, but the biological model is only a concept as well. For me, concepts make me feel like I understand, they widen the structure of my assembly-like thinking and make it more interesting. Interesting is good. More on this later after I have made dinner. I have some hungry mouths to feed. Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:34 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Hi Mark, I didn't think much of of the web pages. For me decontextualize means removing and isolating a process from it's interdependencies to make it an object of analysis. Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 12:55 PM, 118 wrote: Hi Marsha, Thanks for your help in my search. I found the following web page on decontexualization. http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/decontext2.html Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Hi Mark, Here is how I interpret, based on how they function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:40 AM, MarshaV wrote: Correct interrupted to be interpreted. On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, 118 wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? Marsha: The point is I don't talk about it. Using intellect to talk about Quality, reifies it, and it is not this, not that. I experience it as unpatterned, and patterned flow, after that nothing fits well. If you want to talk about Intellectual Level patterns, or Social Level patterns, or Biological Level patterns, or Inorganic Level patterns, I think there is lots to consider and discuss. The point is that while you do not talk about it, you certainly write about it, unless you are in the wrong forum. Your description of experience is shorthand at best There are at least four words there that need interpretation (and one of those is not I, which can also be included). So, let's talk about the expression of quality in the subjects you reference above. You can consider it not really talking about Quality if that makes more sense to you. Mark Hi Mark, The Dynamic aspect of Quality is unknowable, indivisible, undefinable. Static patterns of value are ever-changing, relative, impermanent habit that is able to be conceptualized. The four levels are interpreted and defined with slight differences dependent on an individuals past static pattern history. 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 ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Hey Andrie, Wish I could take credit, but had to ask my Dad. Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:54 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER parser...@gmail.comwrote: woeha!, Andre this was a program brought to you by.. WOEHA! Strange that Mark's Dutch apparently is still sharp enough for 'gebeurtenis' als event,probably he is still having the look and feel in his fingers. stunning quality in your postings , Andre,--quality-driven? 2010/10/23 Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com Marsha to Mark: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a ?thing? or an ?object of analysis.? The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Andre: This was a program brought to you by valky-Rat.com, (sponsored by a Scandinavian soap producer) who is apparently still unaware of what William James wrote more than 142 years ago. She doesn't like James, she doesn't like radical empiricism but still, these were the days before James had fully worked out his ideas, not based on the armchair bouncing idea against idea. No. He bounced ideas against his own, his student's and colleague's and other's experiences as they were related to him directly, through letters, anecdotes or his own scientific investigations in the lab. Just a apropos: the MOQ subscribes to pragmatism and radical empiricism. James called his paper:'The Sentiment of Rationality' in which he proposes an exploration of the action of consciousness. Please remember that 'consciousness' is designated in the MOQ as 'intellectual patterns'... as the 'collection and manipulation of symbols created in the brain that stand for patterns of experience' (Annotn 32). The intellectual level therefore indicates 'action'. James argues that 'rationality is at bottom a feeling' ( keep in mind Phaedrus' pre-intellectual romantic fused with classical reflection bit). Also remember that James was at the beginning of trying to formulate this dawning awareness. He says: [rationality] ' Not a matter of logic or math, not reasoning or ratios, not induction, deduction, or syllogism, not something higher than and detached from the senses, not the opposite of a feeling or emotion -rationality itself is a feeling or emotion'. (William James. In the Maelstrom of American Modernism, Robert D. Richardson, p184) But, of course it is not just pure biology. The MOQ adds a sense of intellectual quality, an aesthetic appreciation of beauty, the recognition of the affective role (pre-intellectual) part. James shows his sensitivity and brilliance in this paper through relating his experience (and not seeing it as purely personal but recognizing it) as a universal attribute of humanity. What this oft repeated valky-Rat program leaves us with is that the intellectual level is not capable of recognizing elegance, harmony, beauty. It is not capable of recognizing values, morality, quality. This is SOM propaganda. We are not talking SOM! We are talking MOQ. It appears to me that this program is hopelessly out of date by at least some 150 years...event hough Heraclitus had a pretty good 'feel' of things as well when he suggested that you cannot step into the same river twice. This program reifies the river, it reifies experience, it reifies DQ into sq. This program is indeed out of date through the ignorance of its own invention which is based on nothing. Alas. Keep on meditating...OhhhMmmm. 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 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Horse, Do you ever post on the MD using a different name, an alias name? Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Horse wrote: However you word it Marsha, SOM as the Intellectual level is SOL. Whether it's by the front or the back door. Two posts a day. That's the limit, please observe it. Horse On 23/10/2010 19:00, MarshaV wrote: Greetings Horse, I am not discussing the SOL, it my view of the Intellectual Level based on reification. I don't believe Bo ever used the word reification. Marsha On Oct 23, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Horse wrote: Marsha, I think you've had more than your two posts a day regarding the SOL. As a reminder to folks on this list, SOM as the Intellectual Level (SOL) is restricted to a maximum of two posts per day per member. Please bear this in mind. Horse On 23/10/2010 18:52, MarshaV wrote: Greetings, Here is how I interpret, based on how the patterns function, the Intellectual (SOM) Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Thanks, 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Hello everyone On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to miss, even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it merely insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have responded with a childish evasion. Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a particular kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of philosophy, then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as a formalized subject/object level (SOM)? How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's like defining food as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the first place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just the ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations and the like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's not to understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use to read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just thinking. Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%. That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, I characterized your reasoning as spectacularly bad and spectacularly stupid but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child could have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. Insult and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, is there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence mean absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you can cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction without embarrassment. Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d. Therefore: Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part of d in recent historic times? C'mon. Anyone can see how s)pectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with it is very clear, no? Dan comments: Yes, I don't get it either... this facination of attempting to define the intellectual level as something it is obviously not, at least not in the framework of the MOQ. SOM as intellect (and I don't care how it is clothed, it is still SOM as intellect) is an unreasonable position that leads to nonsensical conclusions that any serious thinker is bound to reject. It is frustrating to spend so much time on this, especially when Marsha claims to be interested in Buddhist philopophy and how it relates to the MOQ. Why on earth would I even bother getting drawn into another discussion with her when I already know what the end result will be? I've tried to engage both her and John in an intelligent discussion but failed. Maybe it's me. Unlike others here, I am not going to trumpet how smart I am. Yet I have really tried, only to be met with silliness, insults, and the same old stale cup of tea that has been swishing around here for years. Now we've got an umemployed scientist clogging up the airwaves with more foolishness. Oh boy. Isn't it fun. Please find work soon. So, no, it is not just you, David. Just so you know, Dan 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Hi David, I like the post below, except the part where you question another's understanding. (I do it all the time). What is the article you are quoting from? I haven't followed this whole string. I find the paradigm of the absence of inherent existence to be subtle. The four noble truths have an eightfold noble path (in some interpretations), among which are right mindfulness and right concentration. These impart a sense of wisdom or intellect, thus the intellect is involved, as is demanded by Buddhism. However, intellectually, the absence of inherent existence is purported to be an inherent existence itself, thus it is subscribed to. I believe Buddhists texts also talk about this since it is an intellectual caveat and requires the acceptance of certain inherent principles, which are Noble indeed (look up noble if you want). Thus the lifelong ritual. I find such thought to be an oasis for those who seek it, and only Noble in that sense. Now using logic, the existence of such thought is questionable in itself since it requires the feeding of such individuals by people that do not hold such thinking. It is indeed a luxury, no matter how little you want or need. Therefore reaching this oasis requires (is contingent on) the inherent existence of just the opposite. Now this is more like Taoism where such questioning of inherent existence is not present because the Tao does exist inherently. Hope that makes some sense. And don't even try to stump me with semantics, it has no place in my discussion. Thanks, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:38 AM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.comwrote: Marsha said: ... Reification decontextualizes. [and] For me decontextualize means removing and isolating a process from it's interdependencies to make it an object of analysis. dmb says: Your use of these terms is very confusing. In fact, it seems you don't really understand what they mean or how they're used. There is a better word for the meaning you've assign to decontextualization, for example. If we're talking about ideas, to remove and isolate for the purpose of analysis is what we call an abstraction or generalization or conceptualization. And it's a very handy thing. Abstractions and concepts are not reifications. Reification is a fallacy, an error, the mistake of confusing abstract concepts with concrete realities. Reification is a matter of confusing thoughts and things, of mistaking ideas for actual, ontological realities. And what does decontextualize actually mean? It depends on the context. (Mark's link was irrelevant. Different context, different meaning.) Sadly, you aren't using decontextualize properly even when we consider the original context from which you apparently took it. Prof. B. Alan Wallace offers a Centrist view. Not only does this view reject the notion that the mind is an inherently existent substance, or thing, but it similarly denies that physical phenomena as we experience them are things in themselves. That means he rejects the assumptions of subject-object metaphysics. Like the MOQ, there is no substantial dualism between mind and matter because the ways in which we conceive of phenomena are inescapably related to our concepts and languages. Like James and Pirsig, Wallace departs from both the substantial dualism of Descartes and the substantial monism that seems to be characteristic of modern Materialism, or Physicalism. The article continuest... ...Much is made of this difference between appearances and reality. The Madhyamaka view also emphasizes the disparity between appearances and reality, but in a radically different way. All the mental and physical phenomena that we experience, it declares, appear as if they existed in and of themselves, utterly independent of our modes of perception and conception. They appear to be things in themselves, but in reality they exist as dependently related events. Their dependence is threefold: 1) phenomena arise in dependence upon preceding causal influences, 2) they exist in dependence upon their own parts and/or attributes, and 3) the phenomena that make up the world of our experience are dependent upon our verbal and conceptual designation of them. This threefold dependence is not intuitively obvious, for it is concealed by the appearance of phenomena as being self-sufficient and independent of conceptual designation. On the basis of these misleading appearances it is quite natural to think of, or conceptually apprehend, phenomena as self-defining things in themselves. This tendency is known as reification, and according to the Madhyamaka view, this is an inborn delusion that provides the basis for a host of mental afflictions. Reification decontextualizes. It views phenomena without regard to the causal nexus in which they arise, and without regard to the specific means of observation and conceptualization by which they are known. The Madhyamaka, or Centrist, view is so called
Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Dan, Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle that I have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know what SOM is by definition. When is it that something enters into the SOM realm? There seems to be a lot of grey area which you are not describing. When are we actually using SOM and when are we not? What is the boundary that defines one from the other? Is there philosophy going on in a mystical state where there is no separation? If so, how does this happen? How are we able to translate such an experience otherwise? The intellect may have many components that are not intellectual, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. A description, in metaphysical terms of its arising would be most useful. It appears that Marsha is attempting to define such boundaries. Could you please define yours, and stop being so silly about it? I would like to see you defend your rationale without resorting to some nonsensical not this not that. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Dan Glover daneglo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to miss, even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it merely insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have responded with a childish evasion. Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a particular kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of philosophy, then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as a formalized subject/object level (SOM)? How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's like defining food as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the first place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just the ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations and the like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's not to understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use to read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just thinking. Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%. That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, I characterized your reasoning as spectacularly bad and spectacularly stupid but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child could have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. Insult and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, is there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence mean absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you can cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction without embarrassment. Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d. Therefore: Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part of d in recent historic times? C'mon. Anyone can see how s)pectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with it is very clear, no? Dan comments: Yes, I don't get it either... this facination of attempting to define the intellectual level as something it is obviously not, at least not in the framework of the MOQ. SOM as intellect (and I don't care how it is clothed, it is still SOM as intellect) is an unreasonable position that leads to nonsensical conclusions that any serious thinker is bound to reject. It is frustrating to spend so much time on this, especially when Marsha claims to be interested in Buddhist philopophy and how it relates to the MOQ. Why on earth would I even bother getting drawn into another discussion with her when I already know what the end result will be? I've tried to engage both her and John in an intelligent discussion but failed. Maybe it's me. Unlike others here, I am not going to trumpet how smart I am. Yet I have really tried, only to be met with silliness, insults, and the same old stale cup of tea that has been swishing around here for years. Now we've got an umemployed scientist clogging up the airwaves with more foolishness. Oh boy. Isn't it fun. Please find work soon. So, no, it is not just you, David. Just so you know, Dan 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:
Re: [MD] Step One
On Oct 24, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Dan Glover wrote: Hello everyone On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to miss, even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it merely insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have responded with a childish evasion. Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a particular kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of philosophy, then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as a formalized subject/object level (SOM)? How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's like defining food as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the first place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just the ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations and the like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's not to understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use to read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just thinking. Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%. That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, I characterized your reasoning as spectacularly bad and spectacularly stupid but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child could have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. Insult and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, is there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence mean absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you can cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction without embarrassment. Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d. Therefore: Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part of d in recent historic times? C'mon. Anyone can see how s)pectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with it is very clear, no? Dan comments: Yes, I don't get it either... this facination of attempting to define the intellectual level as something it is obviously not, at least not in the framework of the MOQ. SOM as intellect (and I don't care how it is clothed, it is still SOM as intellect) is an unreasonable position that leads to nonsensical conclusions that any serious thinker is bound to reject. It is frustrating to spend so much time on this, especially when Marsha claims to be interested in Buddhist philopophy and how it relates to the MOQ. Why on earth would I even bother getting drawn into another discussion with her when I already know what the end result will be? I've tried to engage both her and John in an intelligent discussion but failed. Maybe it's me. Unlike others here, I am not going to trumpet how smart I am. Yet I have really tried, only to be met with silliness, insults, and the same old stale cup of tea that has been swishing around here for years. Now we've got an umemployed scientist clogging up the airwaves with more foolishness. Oh boy. Isn't it fun. Please find work soon. So, no, it is not just you, David. Just so you know, Dan Greetings Dan, Hard for me to believe that your 'just sitting' isn't 'just daydreaming.' My understanding of how the mind works is 'reification,' unless of course you stay in mindful awareness. I presented all sorts of quotes on reification in the Reifying Carrots thread. Much of the social level patterns are also subject-object based but unconsciously. There is the ability to see how to ride a bike and the actual experience of riding a bike. It is not enough to say these things are now patterns because I read it. Once must experience the difference deeply if one is to kick the s-o habit. Happy daydreaming 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
Re: [MD] Step One
On Oct 23, 2010, at 2:38 PM, david buchanan wrote: Marsha said: ... Reification decontextualizes. [and] For me decontextualize means removing and isolating a process from it's interdependencies to make it an object of analysis. dmb says: blah... blah... blah. For you information dmb. The last book by Alan Wallace I read had plenty of good things to say about W. James. The book 'The Taboo of Subjectivity: Towards a New Science of Consciousness' is one I think you might like. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:27 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:03 PM, 118 wrote: Marsha: I never stated that the MoQ could be described by neti-neti. I was saying to Dan that all this talk it not Quality(Ultimate Truth). I do not understand your complaint? Mark: My complaint was that I do not understand what you are saying. Could all this talk be considered attempts at a metaphysical description of Quality? I have not read all of your correspondence with Dan on this subject, so perhaps I should not just jump in. I will try to get full understanding before I just take a statement and run with it, so as not to waste your time. I can see you are getting frustrated with my inane questions and I beg your forgiveness. Gracias (as John would say). Hi Mark, Sorry, Mark, maybe you are projecting your frustration on to me. I was suggesting to Dan with my words 'not this, not that' that when all is said and done, if I may use an analogy; the words on the menu are not the food. Please feel free to explain neti-neti to your liking. Marsha Mark: Yes you are correct, frustration on my part. I wasn't projecting it on you, I was trying to explain why I was asking questions. Perhaps I need to change the way I frame them. Yes, words are an analogy as Phaedrus stated in ZAMM, that is a given in this forum. I looked up the word analogy on Dictionary.com to see if it would help me explain. Definitions 5 is: 5. Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. I inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? What I am asking now, is: what are the known respective properties of Quality? Mark, Marsha: Naked (unpatterned experience/patterned experience); that is as deep as I have experienced Quality. It is awesome realizations that I have never found adequately expressed by words or things, even wonderful words and paintings. Though words and paintings may initiate such experience. So can simple events. It is being the unknown, undivided and undefined. To be forced to pick out one or two such incidences seems like a Sophie's choice. You can send me a picture if that would help, so long as you add some descriptive (not encrypted) words. I do not do well with riddles. No riddles? But there is nothing to say or see that is not a riddle. I wish I could bring you the moon... But, there, it is outside your window, Mark. Go let the moon shine moonlight on your face. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? Marsha: The point is I don't talk about it. Using intellect to talk about Quality, reifies it, and it is not this, not that. I experience it as unpatterned, and patterned flow, after that nothing fits well. If you want to talk about Intellectual Level patterns, or Social Level patterns, or Biological Level patterns, or Inorganic Level patterns, I think there is lots to consider and discuss. ___ 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
Re: [MD] Step One
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:42 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:27 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:03 PM, 118 wrote: Marsha: I never stated that the MoQ could be described by neti-neti. I was saying to Dan that all this talk it not Quality(Ultimate Truth). I do not understand your complaint? Mark: My complaint was that I do not understand what you are saying. Could all this talk be considered attempts at a metaphysical description of Quality? I have not read all of your correspondence with Dan on this subject, so perhaps I should not just jump in. I will try to get full understanding before I just take a statement and run with it, so as not to waste your time. I can see you are getting frustrated with my inane questions and I beg your forgiveness. Gracias (as John would say). Hi Mark, Sorry, Mark, maybe you are projecting your frustration on to me. I was suggesting to Dan with my words 'not this, not that' that when all is said and done, if I may use an analogy; the words on the menu are not the food. Please feel free to explain neti-neti to your liking. Marsha Mark: Yes you are correct, frustration on my part. I wasn't projecting it on you, I was trying to explain why I was asking questions. Perhaps I need to change the way I frame them. Yes, words are an analogy as Phaedrus stated in ZAMM, that is a given in this forum. I looked up the word analogy on Dictionary.com to see if it would help me explain. Definitions 5 is: 5. Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. I inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? What I am asking now, is: what are the known respective properties of Quality? Mark, Marsha: Naked (unpatterned experience/patterned experience); that is as deep as I have experienced Quality. It is awesome realizations that I have never found adequately expressed by words or things, even wonderful words and paintings. Though words and paintings may initiate such experience. So can simple events. It is being the unknown, undivided and undefined. To be forced to pick out one or two such incidences seems like a Sophie's choice. You can send me a picture if that would help, so long as you add some descriptive (not encrypted) words. I do not do well with riddles. No riddles? But there is nothing to say or see that is not a riddle. I wish I could bring you the moon... But, there, it is outside your window, Mark. Go let the moon shine moonlight on your face. Marsha Hi Marsha, I like what you posted. Riddles within riddles. I was speaking to the more conventional sort. Metaphysics (IMHO) attempts at bringing meaning to the unknown in the same way that science does. It expands the frontiers of (so called) understanding, which is pattern-making to include the unknown into the intellect. Words of description, what we call knowledge (and not the instinctual knowledge, what ever that is...instinct is another pattern in itself to describe the unknowable) is the tool. You often use the Patterning Principle as example. A while back I read the word constellation which as you recall I challenged. Well, attack mode has been switched to neutral. As I think you have said, the brain creates patterns from the unpatterned and converts it into an SOM dialogue. The unpatterned is that which has not yet been converted. I think I understand your proposition of pure undefined experience as a form of quality, the unpatterned until it becomes patterned as an experience. This is analogous to Ham's differentiation. That you use a slash implies an interrelationship between the two. I am delving into that relationship (in a patterning way). Using your Patterning Principle, as I do for Ham's Differentiation. To understand a metaphysics based on that principle takes a little more than pointing to direct experience, it takes the formulation of that experience in a mutually sharable format. So, to now ask a question in order to provide myself that understanding. What is the process by which the unpatterned become patterned? This is not a question of neurophysiology, but a metaphysical one. The intent is to investigate into a written description of Quality. It looks at it from the process side of things. Cheers, Mark ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives:
Re: [MD] Step One
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote: inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this, not that. Clearly I was mistaken. You were simply stating that Quality can not be described with words. OK, I get it. How is it then that you discuss it? Marsha: The point is I don't talk about it. Using intellect to talk about Quality, reifies it, and it is not this, not that. I experience it as unpatterned, and patterned flow, after that nothing fits well. If you want to talk about Intellectual Level patterns, or Social Level patterns, or Biological Level patterns, or Inorganic Level patterns, I think there is lots to consider and discuss. The point is that while you do not talk about it, you certainly write about it, unless you are in the wrong forum. Your description of experience is shorthand at best There are at least four words there that need interpretation (and one of those is not I, which can also be included). So, let's talk about the expression of quality in the subjects you reference above. You can consider it not really talking about Quality if that makes more sense to you. Mark ___ 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
Re: [MD] Step One
On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:24 PM, Dan Glover wrote: Hello everyone On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:37 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 20, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Dan Glover wrote: Hello everyone On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:02 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Dan Glover wrote: Hello everyone On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:21 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 19, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Dan Glover wrote: Hello everyone On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:30 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:48 PM, 118 wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:29 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Dan Glover wrote: Hello everyone On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:26 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:39 PM, Dan Glover wrote: Dan: The intellectual level is just thinking, plain and simple. You know that, John. Marsha: Aren't all patterns conceptually constructed? Wouldn't that make all levels just thinking? Hi Marsha I would say that within the framework of the MOQ, inorganic and biological patterns are physical. We can touch them, examine them. Social and intellectual patterns are mental... like the President of the United States. There is no way to physically tell the President apart from any other human being by examination. So to answer your question, no, not all levels are just thinking. In addition, there seem to social patterns of value that are not intellectual, like saying Bless you when someone sneezes. Those types of patterns are ingrained in us to the extent that we really don't think about it. Dan Dan, If I think Should I say Bless you. to this guy. does that make it an intellectual static pattern of value or a social static pattern of value? Marsha Mark: Yes. Marsha: And the notion that the Intellectual Level represent theology, science, philosophy and mathematics has collapsed into thinking about whether to say Bless you., or not? No, I don't buy that. Hi Marsha Sometimes in order to make the complicated a bit simpler, we start small. I mean, there are only four levels and they contain everything (except Dynamic Quality), so obviously we are using analogy here to order our understanding of reality. Theology, science, philosophy and mathematics are made up of both social and intellectual pattens. They are often cultural-specific, as Robert Pirsig points out. I hope that helps. Dan Hi Dan, Marsha: In Anthony's PhD it states that science theology, mathematics and philosophy are intellectual quality patterns. So here's my understanding of the Intellectual Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as science theology, mathematics and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Hi Marsha You almost had me. I actually thought you might be getting it. But then you have to throw a monkey wrench into the works and foul it all up. Where in Anthony's work does it say the intellectual level is a formalized SOM? Anywhere? Or are you like Bo, just picking and choosing what you agree with? Maybe you and John and get together and relive the old times. Hi Dan, My statement was: In Anthony's PhD it states that science, theology, mathematics: and philosophy are intellectual quality patterns. (period) Next came So here's my understanding of the Intellectual Level:, which clearly labels the sentence as mine. Sorry, but I don't want you, and I never stated Anthony's work suggested anything other than the the Intellectual Level being science, theology, mathematics and philosophy. You, on the other hand, tried to pass the Intellectual Level off as just thinking. Ant's thesis did not state that the Intellectual Level is just thinking. Dan: But Robert Pirsig does! And yes, I know you don't allow much value to the LILA'S CHILD annotations but it is there for all to see. Plain and simple. Marsha: I do have respect for the value of LILA's CHILD, just not for those who would think that their understanding of its contents goes beyond themselves to become the measurement for what's correct or incorrect. Like it's the holy grail, plain and simple. Like all issues were settled on
Re: [MD] Step One
As i am reading your production , Jc, it comes in mind that it is clean and crisp. regardless of the content,-it looks straight. I will come clean on some of your questions, even proposals,step by step. so , maybe i will do a part now, i have to work in shifts,and some parts later on. (Adrie) Its a mechanism, like the mentionings in your last what? 50 posts of Horse's name-,completely off context-off topic, and without filling in the field, pointing the other listers attention to think about Horse as cause of your trouble, cause off Bo's trouble. (JC) 50 is of course, a complete exaggeration, but I'll allow exaggeration to make your point that I do bring up the subject. After all, on this forum, is not Horse's whim the air that we breathe? The background of all discourse? As an old sysop myself, I keep him in mind. Since I keep him in mind, he pops out in my words. newly added comment , Adrie The background of all discourse?,...Nope, Horse is not the originator nor the promotor of Bo's trouble with the defenitions of the intellectual level. He did not invent the issue, the problem, nor is he the originator of the obsessive behaviour generated by it,...(i do not project this to Bo), lot's of momentum are gained by the yelling crowd too. Everything starts with Horse,?, because he is paying the elektricity in the background, maintaining the space we like to live in,managing the posts in the background, editing shedule's, filtering commercial crap out, in short,...investing a lot of his spare-time and money to make the show running. Bo's problem with the defenition of intellect in the dictionaire?...is Bo's problem, but he made it Pirsig's problem, yours , mine, everyone's,.. Do i see a problem with the defenition in the dictionary? nope, its a condensed explanation, not made by Pirsig. The defenition also fails on emo-intellect and artificial intellect, if you ask me, it fails on logic-intellect,groupsintellect animals intellect,..do i have to go on? Pirsig is not writing dictionary's, and what he provided in the LILA'S CHILD annotations is not the annotations themselves , but the work annotated upon,..the impression he provided about intellect here, is a non-limitative projected summary in funtion of the annotated upon. do i need to go on? i don't think so, and i am not going to become obsessive on the group to tell them that i have a problem with the limp's in the dictionary. To use one of Pirsig's pearls,..the problem was not that is was true or not, the problem was that nobody was interested. I short my opinion?,..i think it was a wise dicision made by Horse, to restrict Bo,..and to protect him againt himself, so no further harm is done. Everybody likes Bo, even i do,the good Bo, the polite Bo,the stubborn Bo, ...the statue,.. But do i like the bad Bo,the Bo that lost his nerves?..on the moment supreme? nope. Do i think he had to leave? no,..surely not.Do i think it was possible for him to maintain an untanable position forever? no. So if you want my opinion, but this is only and purely mine, so read it as a proposal, my opinion is that Bo adresses a mail to Horse, explaining the reasons he has to come back,and settle the score without interference of other listers, off-list,off sight of the others, there is no need for a public domain defacement, nor for the cheering of the crowd. If it is not possible for Bo or Horse to shake hands now, if will work in their disadvantage for long to come. And it is not for you and my , JC, or other listers to make bo's or Horse's trial by jury, in the public domain. Strictly spoken, this posting can do without answer...,but a solid answer is an aceptable alternative. Think about it. Adrie 2010/10/20 John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com I think you're overthinking a bit, Adrie. Something I have a lot of experience doing so I recognized it immediately. (Adrie) Nope,engaging is not chiming in, and no, its not about Dan's critique on your style. Its about sneaking out on the presented subject, by deviating the conversation to the subject of Bo,on a moment in time badly chosen, and solely for the purpose of deviating to something you want to throw in, clearly to associate Dan with the Bo-subject. Backtracking a bit, the challenge made originally was that I was hijacking the MD, and refusing its terminology. So I thought I oughta address that challenge head-on, starting at the top of the MoQ - the intellect. Reminding dan what a big issue this is, was not my deviating it was expressly and patiently dealing with what issues were flung my way. The issue of terminology. The dictionary definition proves Bo's point. If it was badly chosen in matters of timing, I have no idea why. Its a mechanism, like the mentionings in your last what? 50 posts of Horse's name-,completely off context-off topic, and without filling in the field, pointing the other listers attention to think about Horse as
Re: [MD] Step One
Marsha said to Dan: In Anthony's PhD it states that science, theology, mathematics and philosophy are intellectual quality patterns. So here's my understanding of the Intellectual Level: ...Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Dan replied: You almost had me. I actually thought you might be getting it. But then you have to throw a monkey wrench into the works and foul it all up. Where in Anthony's work does it say the intellectual level is a formalized SOM? Anywhere? Or are you like Bo, just picking and choosing what you agree with? Maybe you and John and get together and relive the old times. Why do I bother? dmb says: Let us pause for a moment to consider Marsha's spectacularly bad reasoning skills. First, we have Ant's dissertation telling us that science, theology, math and philosophy all count as intellectual patterns. Surely this means that each of them would be a subset within the larger intellectual level. Subject-object metaphysics is certainly not the only philosophical stance. (And as we all know, rejecting SOM is central to the MOQ, not to mention other anti-SOM philosophers like James and Dewey.) So SOM is a subset of a subset of the intellectual level. Let's use modes of transportation as an analogy. In this analogy Ant's quote says that planes, trains and automobiles are modes of transportation. Marsha then reasons that modes of transportation is defined as a Ford truck. This is just a spectacularly bad category error. It's the kind of bad logic that says 15% of the total is equal to the total. There is no way to make that add up. Imagine a painting bigger than the gallery it hangs in. Imagine taking that analytic knife away from Phaedrus and telling him there is only one way to carve up reality. Imagine an very unskilled person got a hold of that knife and used it to cut off her own hands. I mean, even if the reasoning were sound, the consequences would be a complete disaster. If subject-object metaphysics were equal to the entire intellectual level then no other metaphysics could be possible. If that equation were true, then the MOQ would not be possible and this discussion group would be quite pointless. If we accept Marsha's conclusion, then the MOQ is defined as the very stance it rejects and it can't really serve as an alternative SOM and Pirsig's root expansion of rationality is doomed to end in failure before it ever starts. If SOM is the enemy and SOM is the intellectual level, then intellect is the enemy. Then science, theology, mathematics and philosophy are the enemy. The consequence is anti-intellectualism and intellectual paralysis. Marsha's reasoning is spectacularly bad and the consequences of her conclusions are even worse. It is a tour de farce of staggering stupidity. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
dmb, My reasoning is my own based on reading the MoQ literature, Buddhist texts, personal experience and insight through meditation. Your understanding of the MoQ is too shallow, page deep in fact, and not normally worth my consideration. You, too, are one of those who has a hissy-fit if you do not get agreement, and your intellectual competence seems to lead you only to slinging insults. So impressive! Quite frankly I love it when you write this type of post because they will last forever in the archives. Keep them coming. Marsha On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:15 PM, david buchanan wrote: Marsha said to Dan: In Anthony's PhD it states that science, theology, mathematics and philosophy are intellectual quality patterns. So here's my understanding of the Intellectual Level: ...Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Dan replied: You almost had me. I actually thought you might be getting it. But then you have to throw a monkey wrench into the works and foul it all up. Where in Anthony's work does it say the intellectual level is a formalized SOM? Anywhere? Or are you like Bo, just picking and choosing what you agree with? Maybe you and John and get together and relive the old times. Why do I bother? dmb says: Let us pause for a moment to consider Marsha's spectacularly bad reasoning skills. First, we have Ant's dissertation telling us that science, theology, math and philosophy all count as intellectual patterns. Surely this means that each of them would be a subset within the larger intellectual level. Subject-object metaphysics is certainly not the only philosophical stance. (And as we all know, rejecting SOM is central to the MOQ, not to mention other anti-SOM philosophers like James and Dewey.) So SOM is a subset of a subset of the intellectual level. Let's use modes of transportation as an analogy. In this analogy Ant's quote says that planes, trains and automobiles are modes of transportation. Marsha then reasons that modes of transportation is defined as a Ford truck. This is just a spectacularly bad category error. It's the kind of bad logic that says 15% of the total is equal to the total. There is no way to make that add up. Imagine a painting bigger than the gallery it hangs in. Imagine taking that analytic knife away from Phaedrus and telling him there is only one way to carve up reality. Imagine an very unskilled person got a hold of that knife and used it to cut off her own hands. I mean, even if the reasoning were sound, the consequences would be a complete disaster. If subject-object metaphysics were equal to the entire intellectual level then no other metaphysics could be possible. If that equation were true, then the MOQ would not be possible and this discussion group would be quite pointless. If we accept Marsha's conclusion, then the MOQ is defined as the very stance it rejects and it can't really serve as an alternative SOM and Pirsig's root expansion of rationality is doomed to end in failure before it ever starts. If SOM is the enemy and SOM is the intellectual level, then intellect is the enemy. Then science, theology, mathematics and philosophy are the enemy. The consequence is anti-intellectualism and intellectual paralysis. Marsha's reasoning is spectacularly bad and the consequences of her conclusions are even worse. It is a tour de farce of staggering stupidity. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
corrected dmb, My reasoning is based on my own reading of the MoQ literature, Buddhist texts, personal experience and insight through meditation. Your understanding of the MoQ is too shallow, page deep in fact, and not normally worth my consideration. You, too, are one of those who has a hissy-fit if you do not get agreement, and your intellectual competence seems to lead you only to slinging insults. So impressive! Quite frankly I love it when you write this type of post because they will last forever in the archives. Keep them coming. Marsha On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:15 PM, david buchanan wrote: Marsha said to Dan: In Anthony's PhD it states that science, theology, mathematics and philosophy are intellectual quality patterns. So here's my understanding of the Intellectual Level: ...Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Dan replied: You almost had me. I actually thought you might be getting it. But then you have to throw a monkey wrench into the works and foul it all up. Where in Anthony's work does it say the intellectual level is a formalized SOM? Anywhere? Or are you like Bo, just picking and choosing what you agree with? Maybe you and John and get together and relive the old times. Why do I bother? dmb says: Let us pause for a moment to consider Marsha's spectacularly bad reasoning skills. First, we have Ant's dissertation telling us that science, theology, math and philosophy all count as intellectual patterns. Surely this means that each of them would be a subset within the larger intellectual level. Subject-object metaphysics is certainly not the only philosophical stance. (And as we all know, rejecting SOM is central to the MOQ, not to mention other anti-SOM philosophers like James and Dewey.) So SOM is a subset of a subset of the intellectual level. Let's use modes of transportation as an analogy. In this analogy Ant's quote says that planes, trains and automobiles are modes of transportation. Marsha then reasons that modes of transportation is defined as a Ford truck. This is just a spectacularly bad category error. It's the kind of bad logic that says 15% of the total is equal to the total. There is no way to make that add up. Imagine a painting bigger than the gallery it hangs in. Imagine taking that analytic knife away from Phaedrus and telling him there is only one way to carve up reality. Imagine an very unskilled person got a hold of that knife and used it to cut off her own hands. I mean, even if the reasoning were sound, the consequences would be a complete disaster. If subject-object metaphysics were equal to the entire intellectual level then no other metaphysics could be possible. If that equation were true, then the MOQ would not be possible and this discussion group would be quite pointless. If we accept Marsha's conclusion, then the MOQ is defined as the very stance it rejects and it can't really serve as an alternative SOM and Pirsig's root expansion of rationality is doomed to end in failure before it ever starts. If SOM is the enemy and SOM is the intellectual level, then intellect is the enemy. Then science, theology, mathematics and philosophy are the enemy. The consequence is anti-intellectualism and intellectual paralysis. Marsha's reasoning is spectacularly bad and the consequences of her conclusions are even worse. It is a tour de farce of staggering stupidity. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
[Dan previously] I can agree with you that when all is said and done, 'not this, not that' rules. [Marsh in response] It is none of these things, not this, not that.. [Mark carefully interrupting] Hi Marsha, I think you are being misleading by saying it is none of these things. In my opinion it is all of these things as proposed by not this, not that. In that way I agree with Dan. It is easy for one to muddy the waters when one brings in an Eastern philosophy that we do not have a full appreciation of. If the intent is to harmonize MOQ with such then, not this, not that has to be used in a constructive fashion. By saying it is not this, not that, you are conveying a description, not denying one. It is not useful to use such a statement as a conclusion, it is a positive quality which has its own properties open for discussion. The goal would be to add words to describe such properties. I know it's difficult, but use different words so the rest of us can understand what you are proposing. Thanks, Mark 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Hi Mark, On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:55 PM, 118 wrote: [Dan previously] I can agree with you that when all is said and done, 'not this, not that' rules. [Marsh in response] It is none of these things, not this, not that.. [Mark carefully interrupting] Hi Marsha, I think you are being misleading by saying it is none of these things. In my opinion it is all of these things as proposed by not this, not that. In that way I agree with Dan. That was not Dan previously, but Marsha previously and I wished to re-emphasis my statement. It is easy for one to muddy the waters when one brings in an Eastern philosophy that we do not have a full appreciation of. I'm certainly not the only person who has investigated Eastern philosophy, and there is such thing as a question or google search. If the intent is to harmonize MOQ with such then, not this, not that has to be used in a constructive fashion. By saying it is not this, not that, you are conveying a description, not denying one. I'm not sure of your objection. Why do you agree with my first statement and not my second? It is not useful to use such a statement as a conclusion, it is a positive quality which has its own properties open for discussion. If you mean It is none of these things please explain why you think it was not useful. It was a remark made to Dan. I'm sorry do not approve. I have read 'neti-neti' explained many different ways. Maybe you have exact set of words you'd like to recommend. Let's hear them. The goal would be to add words to describe such properties. I know it's difficult, but use different words so the rest of us can understand what you are proposing. I am saying these words do not represent the UltimateTruth/Quality. I thought Dan might understand after all his Zen sitting. And don't ask me to explain what is beyond words.I will only dance away... 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
Re: [MD] Step One
dmb responding to Marsha and Dan: If we accept Marsha's conclusion, then the MOQ is defined as the very stance it rejects... Andre: Spot on dmb but remember that Marsha (and Platt, Bodvar and Mary) is absolutely convinced that LILA is a SOM document and, ipso fact the MOQ a SOM 'variant' as existing at some sort of 'super rationality''quality level. (despite Mr. Pirsig's response that this view undermines the MOQ, Annotn 133) dmb: '...and it can't really serve as an alternative SOM and Pirsig's root expansion of rationality...' Andre: No, by 'their' 'logic' this 'root expansion' is totally rejected...full stop!(ZMM down the drain) dmb: '...then intellect is the enemy. Then science, theology, mathematics and philosophy are the enemy. Andre: Well, from what I have read lately on this discuss it seems that Marsha is not the only one who holds this view. And here is part of Marsha's response: My reasoning is my own based on reading the MoQ literature, Buddhist texts, personal experience and insight through meditation. Your understanding of the MoQ is too shallow, page deep in fact,... Andre: This really reinforces your observation, dmb that 'Marsha's reasoning is spectacularly bad and the consequences of her conclusions are even worse. It is a tour de farce of staggering stupidity'. She accuses you of having 'page deep' understanding of the MOQ ( you have given lectures on the MOQ, you have met and talked with Mr. Pirsig,you are deeply involved with it through your studies and personal experience) yet her understanding of the MOQ is based on (and I quote)her own 'reading' and 'Buddhist texts' (whilst admitting she is no expert on Buddhism). And so, what is left is 'reading of MOQ literature' the salient conclusions of which Marsha's (following Bodvar's) understandings have led to them being rejected by Mr. Pirsig.(see the annotations) And this leaves your meditative practice. Ahh, the meditative practice leading you to regions that do not follow the SOM line and therefore being (stupidly) assigned 'irrational' patterns of thinking which in 'the West' means 'ridiculous, subjective' but really are those types of reasoning that do not follow the logical path of which the real representation in our mind is full, giving in and being rational and honest to the representation of pure experience. Seems to me that even your meditative practices are pre-guided by SOM and that you must reject you own meditative experience for, at least 99 percent. Sad really...but I know you love this Marsha...keep on getting attention and keep up the soliloquize. 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Marsha: You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to miss, even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it merely insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have responded with a childish evasion. Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a particular kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of philosophy, then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as a formalized subject/object level (SOM)? How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's like defining food as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the first place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just the ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations and the like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's not to understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use to read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just thinking. Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%. That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, I characterized your reasoning as spectacularly bad and spectacularly stupid but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child could have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. Insult and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, is there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence mean absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you can cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction without embarrassment. Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d. Therefore: Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part of d in recent historic times? C'mon. Anyone can see how spectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with it is very clear, no? 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
Re: [MD] Step One
On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:33 PM, 118 wrote: Hi Marsha, No reason to be so defensive. Marsha: I was not getting a bit defensive. Why should I? I am sure that you have read neti-neti, it shows in your posts. All I am saying is that it is an insufficient rational description. I can find many things on Google which would disprove your assertion of using it in MoQ. In fact there is no reason for you to read any of these posts since they can all be found someplace with Google . Google is a dangerous thing which is why we have this forum to clarify. Everything you find on there will both support and refute your position. Wiki is a favorite, and Google often seems to place it at the top of a search. Does not that seem suspicious to you in terms of net neutrality? My objection is using neti-neti in the form of denial. If this is Dan's statement then I stand corrected in directing the post to you. Marsha: They were both my statements. But the question to you still remains. How is MOQ described by neti-neti. You are the one using it, don't deflect the question to me. If these words do not represent the ultimate reality, then add some more words to bring us along. Statements followed by explanation is all I am seeking. Certainly you do not have to participate in my education, and if using a megaphone is your method so be it or not be it, (that is the question). Marsha: I never stated that the MoQ could be described by neti-neti. I was saying to Dan that all this talk it not Quality(Ultimate Truth). I do not understand your complaint? Marsha Regards as always, Mark On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:25 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote: Hi Mark, On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:55 PM, 118 wrote: [Dan previously] I can agree with you that when all is said and done, 'not this, not that' rules. [Marsh in response] It is none of these things, not this, not that.. [Mark carefully interrupting] Hi Marsha, I think you are being misleading by saying it is none of these things. In my opinion it is all of these things as proposed by not this, not that. In that way I agree with Dan. That was not Dan previously, but Marsha previously and I wished to re-emphasis my statement. It is easy for one to muddy the waters when one brings in an Eastern philosophy that we do not have a full appreciation of. I'm certainly not the only person who has investigated Eastern philosophy, and there is such thing as a question or google search. If the intent is to harmonize MOQ with such then, not this, not that has to be used in a constructive fashion. By saying it is not this, not that, you are conveying a description, not denying one. I'm not sure of your objection. Why do you agree with my first statement and not my second? It is not useful to use such a statement as a conclusion, it is a positive quality which has its own properties open for discussion. If you mean It is none of these things please explain why you think it was not useful. It was a remark made to Dan. I'm sorry do not approve. I have read 'neti-neti' explained many different ways. Maybe you have exact set of words you'd like to recommend. Let's hear them. The goal would be to add words to describe such properties. I know it's difficult, but use different words so the rest of us can understand what you are proposing. I am saying these words do not represent the UltimateTruth/Quality. I thought Dan might understand after all his Zen sitting. And don't ask me to explain what is beyond words.I will only dance away... 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 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
Re: [MD] Step One
Dmb, The mind reifies; that's the key to my understanding. Here again is my definition of the Intellectual Level: The Intellectual Level, the fourth level, is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. Marsha On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:31 PM, MarshaV wrote: dmb, I use my intellect all the time. I like to. It's fun. So what? For me the MoQ designates Reality = Quality. Quality, for me, is experienced as unpatterned and patterned. - All the talking about the MoQ and Quality are a second-hand intellectualizing and NOT the first-hand knowing/experience of either. What's not to get? You want to think meditation is clap-trap, then don't excited with me that you do not understand. You are really funny. Here try this: Not this Not -this Not (this and -this) Not (neither this nor -this) Marsha On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:09 PM, david buchanan wrote: Marsha: You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still don't see the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to miss, even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it merely insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have responded with a childish evasion. Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a particular kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of philosophy, then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as a formalized subject/object level (SOM)? How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's like defining food as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the first place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just the ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations and the like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's not to understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use to read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just thinking. Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%. That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, I characterized your reasoning as spectacularly bad and spectacularly stupid but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child could have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. Insult and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, is there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence mean absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you can cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction without embarrassment. Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d. Therefore: Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part of d in recent historic times? C'mon. Anyone can see how spectacularly bad that reasoning is, right? It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem with it is very clear, no? 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 ___ 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
