[MD] Some historical perspective

[MarshaV]

Hi Bo,

RMP from the SODV paper:

"The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of quality
is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are
different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern of
life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence his
final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual value
judgments but not complete uniformity."  
 
This sounds like static patterns of value are relative to, at the very
least, life history and the DQ of the event.


Marsha





-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
skutvik at online.no
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 3:09 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Some historical perspective

Marsha

24 Oct.

You had said:
> > He saw something beyond the standard interpretations.

I had replied::
> He  did, but why, oh why, did Pirsig refuse to "translate" ZAMM in the
> light of the MOQ thereby leaving us with one Quality as the real thing
> and then the quality of the MOQ as some secondhand imperfect article
> with Static Quality even lesser value -  "mere concepts" as you harp
> on.  

Marsha:now
> It seems to me there is a difference between stating that spovs are
> ever-changing, interrelated, interconnected, relative and
> 'conceptually constructed' and stating that they are 'mere concepts'. 
> I have not used the words 'mere concepts', but I cannot elevate static
> patterns of value to an equivalent of a thing-in-itself either. These
> spovs represent a provisional world.  Is it a world that is
> ontologically indeterminate and epistemologically indeterminate???   

"Interrelated". Yes, the levels grow out of - on top of - each other and 
form an "interconnected" hierarchy. But "ever-changing" and 
"relative" is what the "static" term don't indicate. And "conceptually 
constructed"?  You once pointed to Bohr's "we are suspended in 
language" thus it's the ocean we swim in, there's noting not conveyed 
by language in this world.    

> Honestly, sometimes I just want to stick to Quality being equivalent
> to 'there is nothing to know and no one to know it'.  Period. 
> End-of-story. Mu.  Ohm.  Shanti, shanti, shanti...        

Sure, the MOQ postulates a DQ which is "nothingness", why search 
for something more?

Bodvar 


















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/