[MD] Kant's Motorcycle

[Joseph Maurer]

On Friday 15 December 2006 7:06 PM Laramie writes to Jos.

>May I interject...

Hi Jos. Sure.

>Laramie:
>"the way you respond [to Value] is determined by
>the complexity of your understanding."

>Couldn't agree more if I understand you right, maybe what follows is at
>least loosely compatible.

>If "you" is replaced by "one" or "it" and refers in all cases to any static
>pattern of value, then the way "you" respond to value (DQ) does vary
>dependent upon complexity of the understanding that is "you".
>If the complexity of the understanding is the same as the complexity of the
>pattern then that complexity neatly maps onto an evolutionary scale. The
>response of a simple understanding (like a rusty nail) is just
>"interraction", whereas the response of a complex understanding like a man
>is what we know as perception.

Yeah, that's pretty compatible. Except in my original comment I 
intentionally
used "I" and "my" rather than "you" and "your", suggesting a tacit 
impersonal
witness removed from SQ ("you") and DQ (Value), which I'm pretty sure the
MoQ would not accept.

>As I see it, any pattern of existence includes the observer and the 
>observed
>- untill "you" look at something the pattern that is both, doesn't exist
>yet.

Right! Prior to "you" looking, there is just ~I~ or sheer Being.

>The act of percieving (valuing) actualises the thing. "In it's self"
>it's something else.

Well, I'd have to say: "In its self" it's that and more.

>If the idea that various species of responses are present in any pattern 
>no>matter how simple it (s understanding) is gets around this as the
>actualisation from DQ (or possibly essence) of the observed by the observer
>happens when any pattern meets another and isn't relient on complex 
>patterns
>having to actualize everything.

Exactly! I like the way you think, Jos. Thank you for writing.

Hi Laramie and Jos. I hope you don't mind my butting in:

Previously I said that: "Aristotle held that you can't want something until 
you know what it is, so truth-abstraction is superior to good-will."

My reason for including that sentence is that Pirsig in Lila contradicts 
that understanding of truth and good.:

"For some time now he's been thinking that if he were looking for proof that 
'substance' is a cultural heritage from Ancient Greece rather than an 
absolute reality, he should simply look at non-Greek-derived cultures. If 
the 'reality' of substance was missing from those cultures that would prove 
he was right.

"Now the image of the raggedy Indian dog was back, and he realized what it 
meant.

"LaVerne had been asking the question within an Aristotelian framework. She 
wanted to know what genetic, substantive pigeonhole of canine classification 
this object walking before them could be placed in. But John Wooden Leg 
never understood the question. That's what made it so funny. He wasn't 
joking when he said: 'That's a good dog.' He probably Thought she was 
worried the dog might bite her. The whole idea of a dog as a member of a 
hierarchical structure of intellectual categories known generically as 
'objects' was outside his traditional cultural viewpoint.

"What was significant, Phaedrus realized, was that John had distinguished 
the dog according to its Quality, rather than according to its substance. 
That indicated he considered Quality more important.

"Now Phaedrus remembered when he had gone to the reservation after 
Dusenberry's death and told them he was a friend of Dusenberry's they had 
answered. 'Oh, yes, Dusenberry. He was a 'good' man.' They always put their 
emphasis on the 'good', just as John had with the dog. A white person would 
have said he was a good 'man' or balanced the emphasis between the two 
words. The Indians didn't see man as an object to whom the adjective 'good' 
may or may not be applied. When the Indians used it they meant that good is 
the whole center of experience and that Dusenberry, in his nature, was an 
embodiment or incarnation of this center of life.

"Maybe when Phaedrus got this metaphysics all put together people would see 
that the value-centered reality it described wasn't just a wild thesis off 
into some new direction but was a connecting link to a part of themselves 
which had always been suppressed by cultural norms and which needed opening 
up. He hoped so." LILA paperback pp 466-467.

Is "complexity of my understanding" a cultural norm?


Joe.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "LARAMIE LOEWEN" <jeffersonrank1 at msn.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Kant's Motorcycle


> >May I interject...
>
> Hi Jos.  Sure.
>
>>Laramie:
>>"the way you respond [to Value] is determined by
>>the complexity of your understanding."
>
>>Couldn't agree more if I understand you right, maybe what follows is at
>>least loosely compatible.
>
>>If "you" is replaced by "one" or "it" and refers in all cases to any 
>>static
>>pattern of value, then the way "you" respond to value (DQ) does vary
>>dependent upon complexity of the understanding that is "you".
>>If the complexity of the understanding is the same as the complexity of 
>>the
>>pattern then that complexity neatly maps onto an evolutionary scale.  The
>>response of a simple understanding (like a rusty nail) is just
>>"interraction", whereas the response of a complex understanding like a man
>>is what we know as perception.
>
> Yeah, that's pretty compatible.  Except in my original comment I 
> intentionally
> used "I" and "my" rather than "you" and "your", suggesting a tacit 
> impersonal
> witness removed from SQ ("you") and DQ (Value), which I'm pretty sure the
> MoQ would not accept.
>
>>As I see it, any pattern of existence includes the observer and the 
>>observed
>>- untill "you" look at something the pattern that is both, doesn't exist
>>yet.
>
> Right!  Prior to "you" looking, there is just ~I~ or sheer Being.
>
>>The act of percieving (valuing) actualises the thing.  "In it's self"
>>it's something else.
>
> Well, I'd have to say: "In its self" it's that and more.
>
>>If the idea that various species of responses are present in any pattern 
>>no
>>matter how simple it (s understanding) is gets around this as the
>>actualisation from DQ (or possibly essence) of the observed by the 
>>observer
>>happens when any pattern meets another and isn't relient on complex 
>>patterns
>>having to actualize everything.
>
> Exactly!  I like the way you think, Jos.  Thank you for writing.
>
> Cheers,
> Laramie
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>