[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[John Carl]

"It would almost be like a mathematical definition of randomness"

"Almost being" means it doesn't quite get there Ron.

And besides, as you know only too well, "all this is just an analogy."

Hey, can you tell that Lu isn't back from her roadtrip yet, or I'd be
chopping more wood and reading less metaphysics.

Whee!!  Cats away, the mouse will play.

"If he really wanted to do Quality a favor, he would just leave all this
alone."

Praise Goodness for old degenerates!

I'm curious to see what good old degenerate Platt has to say about your
quote proving Quality equates with randomness...

" You're
just going to start up a thousand dumb arguments about something that was
perfectly clear until you came along. You're going to make ten-thousand
opponents and zero friends because the moment you open your mouth to say
one thing about the nature of reality you automatically have a whole set
of enemies who've already said reality is something else"


Just tell 'em to deal with it Bob.

Oh that's right.  You did.




On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:33 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ron:
>
>
> "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there
> is
>  a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A
> metaphysics
>  must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics.
> Since a
>  metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since
> Quality is
>  essentially outside definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of Quality'
> is
> essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity.
> It would be almost like a mathematical definition of randomness. The more
> you
> try to say what randomness is the less random it becomes."
>  Or 'zero,' or 'space'
> for that matter. Today these terms have almost nothing to do with
> 'nothing.'
> 'Zero' and 'space' are complex relationships of 'somethingness.' If he said
> anything about the scientific nature of mystic understanding, science might
> benefit but the actual mystic understanding would, if anything, be injured.
> If he really wanted to do Quality a favor he should just leave it alone.
> What made all this so formidable to Phaedrus was that he himself had
> insisted
> in his book that Quality cannot be defined. Yet here he was about to define
> it.
> Was this some kind of a sell-out? His mind went over this many times.
> A part of it said, 'Don't do it. You'll get into nothing but trouble.
> You're
> just going to start up a thousand dumb arguments about something that was
> perfectly clear until you came along. You're going to make ten-thousand
> opponents and zero friends because the moment you open your mouth to say
> one thing about the nature of reality you automatically have a whole set
> of enemies who've already said reality is something else.' Lila chptr 5
>
> >
> > > Ron:
> > > Yes, Human Value creates the world we live in.
> >
> >
> Platt]
>
>
> > So now it's "Human Value" that creates the world, not just Value. Where
> > do you find evidence for that notion?
> >
>
>
> John]
>
> He's been reading too much Ham.  It's the only possible explanation.
>
> Once again I agree with Platt here.  Humans are created by Value, the idea
> that value comes from humans is the "S" in SOM, the subjective horn of a
> mean bull.  A bull that produces cut-throat competitive selves worshipping
> bull-headed progress and bull markets on Wall Street.
>
> Ron:
> Since Quality is indivisable, undefinable and unknowable any conception
> of it is not it and I think you jump to objective misinterpretations on
> this matter
> of what is viewed as "subjective".
>
>
>
Possibly.  Objectifying Subjects is fraught with contradiction and
reification.  A big reason we all reject that metaphysics which places S/O
as fundamental.

But possibly not, either.  A worldview of isolated, individuals competing
has produced a crisis-point need for rethinking capitalism's value systems.
 I don't know if that's fundamental, but it does seem a 'good' place to go
on a thread enquirying into the usefulness of the MoQ.

But I'd better go chop wood.




>
> 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/
>