[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[Joseph Maurer]

On 8/27/09 12:55 PM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

inorganic
organic
social
 
intellect only in reference in the sustaining
of the afore mentioned
 
but not much else
 
Hi Ron and all,

DQ/SQ. Undefined/Defined.

Imho: SOM!  For thousands of years S hid behind an indefinable curtain: ³You
cannot know me, for I am indefinable!²  I manipulate objects requiring
differing capabilities. I have the same existence as the object.  This is
bizarre. The rock and the tool user exist in the same existence.  Instead of
a different existence, difference must depend on a difference in nature.  A
supreme creator whimsically defines me, and I don¹t know it.  I thought I
came from my parents.

MOQ accepts indefinable S differently in accepting evolution.  Instead of
holding S indefinable, it holds the level of existence of S indefinable.
The actions of S make manifest the level of evolution.   How many levels?
Pirsig accepted four levels.  Esoteric literature accepts five definable
levels and two indefinable levels recognized in the activities of HEROES who
knew to act when no one else did.

In MOQ DQ, undefined, evolves!  DQ, undefined existence, manifests in levels
in evolution!   What can I do?  What am I?  My awareness answers those
questions in an indefinable hierarchy of evolution.

Morality is tied to existence in evolution.  The lower level evolving to the
higher creates a moral hierarchy for an individual with choice.  If the
lower level denies the hierarchy in existence, morality becomes the survival
of the fittest.  All lose when evolution ceases.  It is criminal for an
evolving individual to deny the reality of evolution to the social level!
This seems to be Arlo¹s justified upset.

Imho DQ evolution occurred from the inorganic level, to the organic level in
two forms dependent on how they reproduce, to social level consciousness, to
intellectual level SO, (to higher emotional, to higher intellectual‹levels
in consciousness only).

The undefined conscious subject, SOM, becoming an arbiter of morality is
chaos.  The moral law has to be attributed to an undefined creator, and God
made me do it.  SOM denied evolution from an inorganic level and accepted an
undefined omnipotent creator-lawgiver.

Social consciousness and Intellectual consciousness are inseparable and
indefinable in the S of SOM.  MOQ solved that dilemma by accepting
evolution, lower to higher modifying the subject by  behavior.  In MOQ the
Intellectual level SOL evolved beyond the social level consciousness.

In SOM the Subject is undefined, and morality becomes ³What I am aware of is
right.²  The levels in evolution were mistakenly tied to the survival of the
strongest, Hitler, instead of moral judgment.  The need for intellectual
judgment was mistakenly tied to social consciousness in the mishmash of
creationism.  Evolution from consciousness to an intellectual level of law
follows experience and is more revealing than a Divine Creator.

In MOQ the Subject, Consciousness, is the level of social evolution.
Intellectual evolution is the defined S/O.  The source of evolution remains
undefined DQ.  The struggle between consciousness, the social level, and
law, the Intellectual level, is unverifiable if the S in SOM remains
undefined. 

The intellectual level is misunderstood in political circles.  Sloganeering
is the norm.  The realization that metaphysics has been stifled as SOM for
over two thousand years, and carries a lot of hubris is the gift from
Persig¹s endeavor to describe the Metaphysics Of Quality.

My Goodness! How many levels are there?  The Inorganic seems secure.  There
is not too much to question except to say that DQ is SOMETHING undefined in
MOQ.  The Organic becomes more questionable since there are a couple of ways
of procreating: by cell division, and by one cell penetrating another cell.
The Social Level embodies undefined CONSCIOUSNESS.  The Intellectual level
is undefined SO.  I can no longer hide behind:  ³But you don¹t know Me!²  I
sort of have to hide behind:  ³You don¹t know what I can do?²  Esoteric
literature proposes that CONSCIOUSNESS in an individual evolves to higher
consciousness in social and intellectual levels which are always present,
only I don¹t know how to use them and disregard them.  That explains some of
the difficulty in describing the actions of HEROES, from a higher social or
a higher intellectual level.

Joe

> inorganic
> organic
> social
> 
> intellect only in reference in the sustaining
> of the afore mentioned
> 
> but not much else
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 3:52:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
> 
> 
> Ron,
> 
> Consider this one last point.  A patterns existence?  How many of the
> patterns that cycle through mind are really pertinent to physical survival?
> 
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 3:47 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
> 
> You do have a point which ties in with Steves post
> better as opposed to what?
> 
> my only venture is survival
> 
> to exist
> 
> I think I need the evening to meditate on this
> for no answers are readily at hand
> 
> perhaps this is all we have and it's worked fairly well so far
> 
> and thats the best we can do to understand it.
> 
> 
> good discussion
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 3:39:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
> 
> 
> Ron,
> 
> But this is exactly what I'm getting at.  In the direct experience there is
> only experience, there is no comparison with past or future.  But the
> patterns are relative.  The patterns may have a higher or lower value based
> on their usefulness, but it is a relative patterned usefulness. 
> 
> Why would one pattern be chosen over another?  Why does one pattern have
> more meaning than other?  These are not insignificant questions, but more
> likely it is a pattern doing the choosing.  Even the notion that there is an
> 'I' doing the choosing is a pattern.  No truth there either...   
> 
> Even the fact that I feel a need to get to the bottom of this is a pattern.
> I just can't lay it on Radical Empiricism and American Pragmatism.  If it is
> not useful to actual experience, what use is it at all?  The only true
> experience is Silence. 
> 
> Why is an intellectual pattern more true?  Is it because it is suppose to
> have less subjective-values?  Please...   
>     
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:36 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
> 
> ok, well, what IS real? one needs a basis for comparison.
> 
> I would think value is what is most "real"
> 
> what gives choice from one pattern from another?
> 
> why choose one pattern over another?
> 
> why does one pattern have more meaning than another?
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:07:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
> 
> 
> I am at a disadvantage because I do not know Rorty's philosophical position.
> As far as I can think this through, there is the Ultimate Truth which cannot
> be divided, undefined or known.  And then there is these patterns, some of
> which are called truth, but are totally relative to past conceptually
> interpreted experience and projected into the future.  I am not saying that
> they should be rejected, I've never said I thought they should be reject,
> but known as what they are: relative truth so that a better assessment can
> be made.  Relative truth is better than calling them illusion, which they
> are.  I can acknowledge watching the patterns flip through my mind, but not
> accept them as real. They are patterns and totally relative.     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 1:27 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
> 
> See, I think this was Daves beef,
> Rorty did'nt have betterness and value
> to support his claims so his ideas were
> colored as a kind of relativism.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 1:06:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
> 
> well,
> This is where I think the Pragmatists, especially
> the topic of debate (Rorty) would say this is where
> cultural agreement rests in regard to convential truths
> for they are contextual to these agreements. It's what
> gives them the illusion of being universal.
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:42:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
> 
> 
> I've been thinking about (t)ruth, and of course if you define it as DQ than
> it is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable, and you are talking about
> Ultimate Truth. But what of conventional truth?  Been thinking that
> conventional truth is related to time (past and future(patterns)), and since
> past and future are illusions conventional truth is illusion too, but we
> already know this.  I don't know how conventional truth can be thought
> anything but relative to one's conception of past and future experience?
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:30 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
> 
> I think this where DQ comes into the discussion
> 
> it's indefinable but you know what it is
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:24:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
> 
> Hmmmm.
> 
> I'm really not in the mood to argue, but what exactly is your definition of
> truth?  If pure experience, I think there is not the time/space to make a
> comparison.  
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:55 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
> 
> Now, Calling Rorty a relativist is kinda lumping him in
> with a company I'm not sure is deserved, a truth relativist
> is more a contextualist, they admit truths do exist but
> are contextual.
> 
> that fits
> 
> sitting on a hot stove and jumping off is foundational as a true pure
> expereince
> with pragmatic consequence
> but how that expereince is interpreted is of contextual nature,ex.  while we
> would say it burned,
> another culture might describe as biting, the metal beast bit me. ect..
> 
> it these sorts of cultural distinctions ( I think) Rorty meant but as I say
> I have to do some reading on Rorty.
> 
> thanks Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:33:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
> 
> Hello Steve,
> 
> I don't think thats too pessimistic rather a healthy bit of skepticism
> regarding the matter, which, in my opinion gives it more power.
> 
> It also flushes out the term "relativism" as mostly a pejoritive term
> toward this sort of thinking in the context we are discussing.
> 
> I don't feel that the idea is to escape or free ourselves but to extend
> and expand.
> 
> -Ron
> 
> 
>  
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Steve Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:15:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> I don't want to sound too pessimistic about our inability to free ourselves
> from our culture. We are also in a position to recreate our culture.
> 
> Consider this from a Princeton colleague of Rorty named Jeffrey Stout in
> Ethics After Babel:
> 
> "...tradition-bound thought is [not] necessarily uncritical. We may have no
> power to transcend our traditional inheritance completely--for we are
> finite, historically situated beings--but we do not have to rise above
> history to call assumptions in question. The attempt to stand outside one's
> age, Hagel said in a famous phrase, is like trying to jump over the Rhodes.
> You cannot do it. The danger comes when you think you have, for then you
> will be more likely than ever to set limits on criticism. You will view some
> of your assumptions as eternal deliverances of reason. It would be better to
> think of them as predjudices--as prejudgments [Pirsig would call such habits
> of thought, intellectual patterns of value] any one of which can in
> principle be placed in question provided most are kept in place at any given
> moment."
> 
> Now it seems Pirsig said that he needed to "leave the mythos" to bring back
> the Quality postulate which explains his insanity. He put too many of
> tradition-bound assumptions into question at once. It was necessary for him
> to do so because he was pursuing the "Ghost of Reason" itself. But when he
> returned to create a thing called "The Metaphyics of Quality" he was back in
> the mythos, fighting to call a particular set of tradition-bound assumptions
> into question while maintaining others. If he didn't maintain others, he
> would be completely incomprehensible.
> 
> Pirsig never expected the MOQ to be the final word on reality. His work is a
> contribution to an ongoing cultural process of self-creation that cycles
> from such innovation as his MOQ to criticism to revision to the next
> innovation. That the MOQ is not immune to this historical process does not
> diminish Pirsig's genius, it is just to say that Pirsig is a "finite,
> historically situated being."
> 
> Best,
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:53 PM, X Acto wrote:
> 
>> Hello Steve,
>> 
>> I think we mix in meaning, while I agree that what is percieved is shaped
>> by culture, and that Moq is not a free ticket to a gods eye view, it
> however
>> does provide a standard in which all human cultures may be understood
>> and measured in relation to their values.
>> Keeping in mind, that the intellectual level of a culture is defined by
> that culture.
>> its highest patterns being those that sustain social and biological
> quality.
>> 
>> I do not think this effects our culturally derived perception as our
> culturally
>> derived understanding.
>> It informs us that our cultural values of intellect are not THE value of
> intellect.
>> 
>> 
>> Moq in this manner may be applied to any cultural context
>> 
>> I really feel that it's most profound impact is on human values as a whole
>> 
>> which break down universally in terms of four static levels of quality.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Ron
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Steve Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:52:16 PM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] The relativity of the MoQ
>> 
>> Hi Ron,
>> 
>> 
>>> Steve,
>>>   I thought the premise behind the 4 levels was not only better
> understanding
>>> but
>>> the breaking of the paralysis of cultural relativism, and relativism in
> general,
>>> I got the feeling throughout Lila that that was the problem western
> society faced.
>>> 
>>> and the arguement Pragmatism lacked
>>> 
>>> you know
>>> 
>>> virtue, excellence..betterness...Quality
>>> 
>>> virtually both books are about the feelings of emptiness and detachment
>>> objectivism unleashes in the form of moral relativism.
>>> 
>>> I agree it is not about what is true, but it IS about what is better.
>>> 
>>> beliefs are justified through use in expereince otherwise they have no
> value.
>>> 
>>> what else would be discussed than what values are better than others?
>>> 
>>> and what framework would yield those answers but MoQ?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure how "I think therefore I am" figures into the conversation
>>> in this regard.
>> 
>> 
>> Steve:
>> I was referring to this bit from Lila:
>> "Our scientific description of nature is always culturally derived. 
> Nature tells us only what our culture predisposes us to hear.  The selection
> of which inorganic patterns to observe and which to ignore is made on the
> basis of social patterns of value, or when it is not, on the basis of
> biological patterns of value. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" was a
> historically shattering declaration of independence of the intellectual
> level of evolution from the social level of evolution, but would he have
> said it if he had been a seventeenth century Chinese philosopher?  If he had
> been, would anyone in seventeenth century China have listened to him and
> called him a brilliant thinker and recorded his name in history?  If
> Descartes had said, "The seventeenth century French culture exists,
> therefore I think, therefore I am," he would have been correct."
>> 
>> The MOQ is not immune to this sort of historical contingency either and so
> then is also culturally derived. This is not a dig on the MOQ. Everything is
> culturally derived. At least the MOQ includes an understanding of that fact.
>> 
>> Twentieth century liberalism exists, therefore Pirsig thinks, therfore the
> MOQ exists.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Steve
>> 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/
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 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/
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 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/