[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[118]

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:39 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:32 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> > Nope, don't get it.  But I do get Ham, kinda.
>
>
> Takes all kinds, I guess.
>
> And I hope you know me well enough by now, Mark, to understand that I mean
> that phrase literally.
>

[Mark]
Yes, I read what you write as a learning experience.

>
>
> > It would seem that you are
> > working along the lines of cause and effect, or "which came first?".
>
>
> Nope, that'd be more along Ham's line of thinking, I think.  I'm not much
> troubled with postulations of cosmological first causes and big bang
> beginnings.  Oct of 1959 saw my universe's beginning and I've considered a
> lot of the stories I've been told about before that and the explanations
> that seem relevant to my life I pay attention to. But mostly, I don't worry
> too much about "which came first"  Everything is.  Deal with it.  Is my
> motto.
>

[Mark]
I agree.  With logic, however, one needs assumed premises from which to
start.  As a scientist I realize that we start somewhere in the middle and
end in the middle.  I have no problem dealing with it, I just sit here and
read and write.

>
>
>
> > This
> > of course is a paradox without much resolution.  Even the Buddhist notion
> > of
> > co-arising leads to a similar logical question.
>
>
>
> Huh?  The insight that two things MUST logically arise together leads to
> problems of first cause?  How does that work?  I'd say the Buddhist notion
> of co-dependent arising leads to the refutation and avoidance of such
> "similar logical questions" not leads to them.
>
>  Maybe I've got it wrong tho.  I do that a lot these days!
>

[Mark]
My observation is that you have the awareness of codependent arising.  Yes,
things arise together, they have to, including our own consciousness.  So,
this is the starting point.  One cannot go any deeper than that in a logical
sense.  I firmly believe that we are creating, so depth is not as
significant as breadth.

>
>
>
> >  I distinguish between Value
> > and Quality.  Quality exists, it is what differentiates.  We create
> value.
> >  But, of course this could also go on forever.
> >
>
>
> Well I distinguish between them too.  But absolutely more simplistically
> than you (big surprise!)  Value is the line and Quality is the direction on
> the line.  You can have a bad or negative value, but Quality is the good,
> that's how I use, those two terms.  And when we talk about value being the
> fundament of existence, I believe we are just starting down the path to the
> MoQ.   Many metaphysical systems begins with this understanding and
> insight.  The fall under the generic name of Idealism.
>

[Mark]
I agree with your analogy.  I would say mine is pretty simplistic, it is
getting it into words that I have trouble with.

>
> My idea of the MoQ is that  Quality is the direction, not the line.  That
> the MoQ has something relevant to say about the fundamental existence of
> betterness - not "line-ness".   I believe that this is the properly
> Pirsigian interpretation, too.  Somethings I think we differ on, but not
> this one.  This one, I differ with dave.  When I first asked the question,
> Platt agreed with me, dmb says its all about the line-ness, and nobody else
> had an opinion, that I noticed and it comes up now and then, but nobody
> really wants to discuss it, that I notice.  A lot escapes my notice!
>

[Mark]
SEP again?  Direction works for me as well.  The line-ness comes in when we
need to control that direction.  Put an anchor on it and stretch it towards
the heavens.

>
> A lot doesn't, as well.  Hmmm...
>
> And btw, when you day "this could also go on forever", do you mean that in
> a
> bad way?  Because personally, I'm somewhat comforted by infinite processes
> that I feel a part of.  I wouldn't mind going on forever...
>

[Mark]
No, not in a bad way, just in a circular way.  Circles are cool, and
sometimes they provide opportunity for tangential drift.  Maybe make a
figure 8 out of a circle.  Put it on its side, and it means infinity.
 Interesting that such a small symbol is infinite.  Twist it a bit and we
have a Mobius strip with two dimensions depicted in three.  Then we have
"Eight is enough" a TV show with everything about life in it.  And do't
forget that 8 is the sacred number for Isis.  8 bits used to be the
standard, now we work with multiples of that.  Speaking of bits, there are
some who could use one of these.  Bits and whips.  Now we are talking my
language.  Handcuffs anyone?

>
>
> >
> > So, how about this?  Quality pulls value from us.  It creates the
> choices.
> >
>
>
>
> Well, "pulling value from us" sounds like taking choice away, to me.  I do
> think of Quality having a "pull", but it is very, very subtle, in my
> experience.  You know it when you see it, that is for sure.  But very
> often,
> you don't see it and that's for the simple reason that it just isn't there.
> Sometimes there is no Quality choice.  But there's still choice.
>

[Mark]
Have you ever been waterskiing?  It's fun.  As Tim would say, constrained
choice.  I think there is always Quality choice, but sometimes it is in
between a rock and a hard place.  Takes some subtle discernment to see the
personal quality.

>
> However, one thing I'm very sure of, when there is no choice, there is no
> Quality. This does put me in a quandry to explain choice at the quantuum
> level, which I will do, if pressed to.  (that's more a theat, than a
> promise
> :-)
>

[Mark]
I am only at the Platinum level.  Still waiting for an upgrade from the
authorities :-).

>
> Does that make choice, more fundamental than Quality?  I'm not sure.  Here
> again, Ham is probably the man for such debates.  I've got both in my life,
> and I like it that way.  Perhaps what we need here is a nice "co-dependent
> arising" and we can get back to drinking and dreaming.
>

[Mark]
Co-dependent arising works for me, now let's move on to what it tastes
like.

>
>
>
> >
> >   One could say that the "I" is a quality decision.
> >  That is the choice creates the "I".
>
>
>
> Well, that's where my head is at.  Put there by my readings in Royce, of
> course.  Did you know James came up with the term "Will to Believe" from an
> earlier publication of Royce's?  I wish I could convince more of the
> philosophers on this forum to look for themselves, into Royce.  There is so
> much there and I can't talk about it all... I'm not really a focused type
> of
> person, if you didn't notice.  :-)
>

[Mark]
Yes, Will is the Quality input.  Then we need to start choosing.

>
> But yup, I think the faithful-I is  a Quality decision, in every way.
> Psychologically, Ontologically and Epistemologically.  If I'm missing any,
> let me know.
>

[Mark]
Scientifically?

>
>
> >  Trying to nail these things down is
> > the problem.  Jesus died for your sins, have you forgotten?  This last
> one
> > was tongue in cheek, of course (or was it?).
> >
> >
> Your guess is better than mine.  Personally, I don't think about my sins
> much, and often wonder a bit about people who do.  One other good reason to
> avoid churches cuz they are FULL of people just absolutely obsessing over
> their sins.  Really does make you wonder what the hell they think they're
> doing there.
>

Yeah, one man's sin is another man's birth.  I like using the
cat-o-nine-tails with the Mea Culpa chanting.  Never fails to put me in a
good mood.

Humbly yours,
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
>