[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[118]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [Mark before]
> I would have to say that S/O is the product of reflection.  This is where
>  the
> intellectual level  in its static form comes in.  That is, rules of
> governance.
>  In its dynamic form, it is free from S/O.
>
> [Arlo]
> Are you suggesting there are Dynamic intellectual patterns of value and
> static
> intellectual patterns of value?
>

[Mark]
The demarkation of static and dynamic is not real.  As we think, all is
dynamic.  We see the same things over and over which makes them appear
static.  But each appearance is in real time, therefore dynamic.  So, if we
make something that reappears over and over again static, then I would say
that we dynamically create static patterns.

>
> I think its more clear to say there is Dynamic Quality, and all stable
> patterns
> of emanating from this are what we consider "static patterns of value".
>
> Given this, the response to DQ can be inorganic, biological, social or
> intellectual.
>

[Mark]
Yes, if we have a clear view of static patterns, we can divide them up into
categories.  Such categories are somewhat artificial, but we all know that,
they are analogies.  I have no problem with such division if it is useful.
 Sometimes I have a hard time differentiating between all of them.  I work
at the interface of inorganic chemistry and biology.  I guess the more one
knows the harder it is to classify.  To the philosopher with little
knowledge on the details I suppose this works.

>
> [Mark before]
> So the question would be, do we let the static dominate the dynamic?  I
> would
> say, that this will never work.
>
> [Arlo]
> Would you say this is true of the social-biological boundary as well, that
> static social patterns should not dominate biological patterns of value?
>

[Mark]
Again I would have to equivocate.  But, to provide you with an answer, I
would say that what is termed a static social pattern should never dominate
a dynamic biological pattern.

>
> [Mark before]
> Decisions made by the intellect are dynamic.  Learning is dynamic.  The
> Academy
> is static due to its dogma.
>
> [Arlo]
> Adherence to "dogma" is not (1) exclusive to the Academy and (2) not
> indicative
> of the Academy.
>
> If we abolish the Academy, what do you propose would take its place? Do we
> teach every possible theory or idea that comes along as equally valid? Do
> we
> more than a thousand times fold increase the amount of reading material by
> having every possible "article" by anyone published? How do you propose we
> discriminate? Do we at all? Should "Loose Changers" and "flat-earthers" be
> given spots in the curriculum?
>
> If YOU were suddenly President of Academy University, what changes would
> you
> put into place.
>

[Mark]
The only thing that I would suggest is to remain flexible.  See the Academy
for what it is, a repository of old information creating new.  If it gets to
sticky, the first thing that has to go is the old information.  I have no
problem reinventing it, we do that all the time in philosophy anyway.  The
Academy is symbolic of a defined method in my interpretation, such as the
Academy of Science.  In this way it is dogmatic.  This is just my view,
having suffered though such Academies.

>
> [Mark before]
> We do not want MOQ to go there.
>
> [Arlo]
> Well, you, Marsha and Platt do not, but Pirsig, me, Ant, DMB, Horse, and
> many
> others do.
>

[Mark]
Dogma is dangerous because it is static.  But, I am sure you know what you
are doing.  I will watch and perhaps agree.  I am still waiting to see the
structure you create.

>
> [Mark before]
> I wouldn't say it is defective, I believe it is misinterpreted.
>
> [Arlo]
> Are any of the other levels "misinterpreted"?
>

[Mark]
Well, like I said before, all levels are analogies, and as such can be
misinterpreted.  I suppose we each have our own interpretation.  However, if
the interpretation is to demean, then I would use the mis-.

>
> [Mark before]
> Provision??  I can only say that intellect should be moral; morality does
> not
> have to be intellectual.
>
> [Arlo]
> Intellectual patterns are moral patterns. "Morality" does not have to be
> "intellectual", it can be social, biological or inorganic. But intellectual
> patterns are morally superior to these others.
>

[Mark]
I do not think you can use morality both as a building block, and then as a
discriminator.  This does not make logical sense.  Morals make up the
intellect, but cannot be morally superior to other morals.  You need another
word there.

>
> [Mark before]
> This is the traditional Western view of Truth over Quality; we endeavor to
> change this through MOQ and put Quality over Truth.
>
> [Arlo]
> No one has ever proposed that Quality is subordinate to Truth. Indeed, I
> doubt
> anyone you are pointing to with this even thinks there is a "capital-T
> Truth",
> just provisionally truths as revealed via experience.
>

[Mark]
It would seem to me you are pointing to more than provisional truths with
your questions.  But I may be mistaken.

Hope I answered your questions.

Mark

>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>