[MD] Some historical perspective

[MarshaV]

-----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: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:05 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Some historical perspective

Hi Marsha 
 
26 Oct. you wrote:

> 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.


Bo:
The SODV paper was a speech given to a conference in Bruxelles and 
RMP seemingly drops the whole MOQ in an effort to reach these Q-
ignorant participants and sounds as if he is Phaedrus of ZAMM just 
having conceived the Quality Idea, trying to convince his teacher 
colleagues, and that "individual evaluation of quality" is determining 
what is best of strawberries or blueberries. 

Marsha:
Okay, I can see this.  Many of these physicists are materialist through and
through, but I would like to think Bohr and Heisenberg would have 'gotten
it.'  

Bo:
The MOQ however postulates that existence (must use this grand 
term to avoid "us" or "we") is an evaluation of Quality according to the 
known levels. Inorganic existence is the "liking of inorganic quality", 
biological ditto "liking of biological quality" and so on upwards. 

Marsha:
Postulates is such a intellectual term.  The explanation sounds human, all
too human...  But there is also something intrinsically 'right' about it.   

Bo:
I can't see that these static levels being relative, not to each other, 
their moral codes are clearly demarcated and definitely not in any 
universal sense. Inorganic quality IS the universe, and biology is life 
whatever its "inorganic building block" (it may not always be carbon). 
And social value  must be organization of life - be it om earth or at the 
other end of the Milky Way  - what "intellect" is I drop here, but that too 
must be the same all over the universe.         

Marsha:
And I can't see that when a pattern is active it isn't entangled (;-) with
patterns from all the levels.  The MoQ is a better world-view.  Quality
equals Experience(patterned & unpatterned).  Story.  Game.  Dance.  


 






> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> 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/
> 
> 


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/