[MD] Loneliness

[David Thomas]

Bo,

(Snip)
On 9/13/09 3:51 AM, "Bodvar Skutvik" <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

>                               SOM
> 
>                         OBJECTIVE REALITY
>                                        !
>                         SUBJECTIVE REALITY
> 
> because this is what SOM postulates: An objective - material - reality
> that has spawned a subjective - mind - reality.
> 
>                                   MOQ:
> 
>                          DYNAMIC QUALITY
>                                        !
>                          STATIC QUALITY
> 
> This is what the MOQ postulates: A dynamic reality  that has spawned
> (levels of) static quality.
Right we have REALITY>filtered by humans through>the SOM map>into OBJECTIVE
(MATERIAL) REALITY side by side with SUBJECTIVE (MIND) REALITY when it
emerged way back when. Over time as it was tweeked and warped by generations
of philosophers and reduced into the diagram that you show. And it was this
configuration the RMP was faced with. Where subjectivity is an epithet,
reduced to an evil mutation of deluded quarks.

IMHO dynamic reality has "spawned" nothing for humans but names, concepts,
and artifacts. And I have never and never will experience a static pattern
of quality. Oh maybe I will but it will be an instantaneous event. The event
of my death.

(RMP Lila 120) "In the past Phaedrus's own radical bias caused him to think
of Dynamic Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now
he had always felt that these were dead." And this feeling seems to dominant
the thoughts of a majority in this forum. Dynamic=Live & Good, Static=Bad &
Dead.

Indeed if you read on and think about what he says about the stability of
patterns if anything becomes completely static, stopped, no life, no dynamic
at all it degenerates. Ceases to be what it was. Becomes unpatterned or
falls below our ability to detect them.

Here is how I view the MoQ process now. We experience, this immediate
dynamic flux of qualities in which we perceive persistently STABLE patterns.
As humans reflected on these for millions of years they began to name and
group the patterns (and their relationships) in numerous similar but often
conflicting ways. Metaphysics tries to provide a map to resolve those
conflicts. 

So reality is a dynamic flux of qualities in which we experience stable
patterns, including you and me.

>> As I posted elsewhere James was highly critical of monist
>> philosophies. He thought they led to highly static Absolutist
>> positions and interpretations.
> 
> Could not agree more.
> 
>> As a pluralist James could have helped. In MoQ terms he was not only
>> interested in the patterns of value but the relationships between. His
>> short 1909 version of Radical Empiricism states:
> 
> Pluralist? There can only be dualisms, but OK

Pluralism to James proposes that one of the most useful, most valuable
claims that can be made about this "immediate flux of life" (quality) is
that while it all seems to hang together quite well, it is not an absolute
one, but a relationship of many. Many trees, many rocks, now many, many,
many, people, many thoughts and many things. This is the value that
pragmatism brings to the MoQ.

> I feel a certain uneasiness. "My
> DQ and your DQ"?. We are the static levels, existence's dynamic
> aspect is something terrible - in Biblical terms like "the face of God"
> that no lives to see.

(Lila 121) "Life can't existing on Dynamic Quality ALONE. It has no staying
power. To cling to Dynamic Quality ALONE apart from any static (stable)
patterns is to cling to chaos"

The capitalization of ALONE is my emphasis to remind everyone that RMP did
not excluded dynamic quality as a real part of all life, all existence,
including human life.

The metaphor I like to use DQ/SQ relationship is that of seeing patterns in
the clouds. DQ is the clouds, SQ is the dogs,fish,humans,etc patterns we
sense in those clouds. In real clouds the patterns morph to unrecognizable
but in MoQ clouds the while the patterns shift and change the general shape
of reality persists and becomes clearer and clearer.

> And the fact remains that
> MOQ's continental divide is dynamic/static not dynamic/conceptual
> that Pirsig "catched" from James and this will haunt the MOQ forever
> if not sorted out..

The only place that I have seen this "dynamic/conceptual" relationship
expressed is by you in your posts. I sure haven't read it in any of Pirsig's
work. While I did compare the theories, hypotheses, concepts about reality
that James and RMP like this before:

>> Dave before
>> James: Flux>Sensations>Perceptions>Conceptions.
>> Pirsig: DQ>cutting edge>SQ

You have to understand that James starts from a psychological, physiological
perspective. Pirsig does not. But they are both intellectual patterns that
tries to be the best at organizing and explaining reality in a useful,
valuable, way.  

Which lead right back to your SOL proposal. Where you make this claim:

>>>"the subject/object metaphysics is MOQ¹s intellectual level" BS
SOL(AQI)update

Followed by some RMP responses and then you continue:

>>>Intellect..is...³The power of the mind to reason contrasted with feeling and
>>>instincts² BS SOL(AQI)update

>>>Intellect is the VALUE of the signs/what they signify distinction.>intellect
is the S/O distinction. "BS SOL(AQI) update"

>>> intellect is the VALUE of the S/O distinction! "BS SOL(AQI) update"

>>> intellect is the VALUE of the S/O distinction! "BS SOL(AQI) update"

All of which I used to morph into this which I posted separately.

> Dave elsewere
>The intellect:..is...³the human ability to CREATE and VALUE ideas about
>experience.²

Does that not cover it? Without permanently tainting the intellectual level
with S/O?

> Ice storms must be something special for Southern USA, even in our
> semi-arctic conditions that kind of storm is unknown.

Until you have experienced it it's hard to imagine. Usually happens the
worst in late winter or early spring and covers everything with a crystal
coating of ice sometimes up to 2" thick. Very beautiful in the sun of the
next day, but highly destructive particularly of trees. If you want I can PM
you a picture I've got a ton of them. A sixty year old oak tree in my front
yard split right down the middle.

Dave