[MD] Social Intellectual

[Mary]

Thank you, very, very much, Marsha.  Really excellent!

> 
> On Jul 24, 2010, at 3:56 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> 
> >
> > dmb said to Marsha:
> > Part of the problem is that you define static patterns as ever-
> changing. That's like defining stable to mean unstable. It's just
> plainly wrong. There is DQ and there is sq and "ever-changing" is a
> good description of just one of them and it isn't the latter. There is
> a 50-50 chance of getting that right but you blew it.
> >
> > Marsha replied:
> > Think about patterns.  They are not individual independent things.
> They are value events.   Some patterns are repeated millions of times.
> Each event is slight different dependent on an individual's unique
> history and the immediate dynamic experience.  When I state patterns
> are ever-changing that is what I mean.  The static event has a
> beginning, a middle and an end, and each static event is different.
> They are ever-changing.    Depending of the circumstances, a pattern
> may be broad or tight.  It can be so much more or so much less than a
> dictionary definition, but SOM needs exact definition, intellect
> desires exact definition, and they are related.  This is why I
> understand the MoQ to be beyond intellectual patterns, and like QP
> beyond common sense and beyond language.  I believe RMP to have given
> us the MoQ in an intellectual form because it is all he had available,
> BUT he is pointing beyond what an intellectual pattern can express.
> >
> > dmb says:
> >
> > Look, that's exactly what I was complaining about. You're
> > describing static quality in terms of "events" and as "ever-
> > changing". But that's how Pirsig characterizes dynamic quality.
> 
> Dynamic Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.
> That is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable!!!
> 
> 
> > There is static and dynamic and you need BOTH.
> 
> Of course!
> 
> 
> > There is the value of order and stability and then there is
> > freedom and growth. You're taking all the order and stability
> > out of the MOQ
> 
> Certainly I am not taking all the order and stability out of the MoQ.
> Patterns are stable patterns, they are not ossified into objects.  They
> are patterns.
> 
> 
> > and since the MOQ is itself a set of static intellectual patterns,
> > this destabilizes the meanings and definitions that make up the
> > MOQ.
> 
> At the moment the MoQ is not a very stable pattern.  The pattern
> of belief that things independently exist in an external world is a
> very stable pattern.  The MoQ is a new intellectual pattern, and its
> growth and longevity is yet to be determined.  We hope!
> 
> 
> > That's not really relativism. It's more like intellectual vandalism.
> 
> Look, maybe your Blarney is useful in everyday banter, but it is
> misplaced in philosophy.   It is distracting commentary, and not
> useful in explaining or trying to understand.
> 
> 
> > DQ is rightly characterized as an event, a process, as the ongoing
> > flux of life. This is CONTRASTED with the static patterns of quality
> > which are derived from this cutting edge of experience. Static
> intellectual
> > truth are provisional. They evolve, sometimes quickly and sometimes
> > over the course of centuries. But that doesn't mean they are ever-
> changing.
> 
> I don't mean they transform into something different, but they
> are patterns, p-a-t-t-e-r-n-s.  Gravity is a pattern of value.  If I
> asked a scientist to write down all he could on the subject of
> gravity and asked you to write down all you can on the subject
> of gravity, they would be different, but they would both be bits
> and pieces of the gravity pattern.  You might both write very
> different explanations but both of you might be correct.  A
> pattern is not limited to finite definition.  Patterns can be
> amorphous and still be stable.
> 
> 
> > It just means they evolve and develop. "Provisional" truths
> > exists presently and function as truths precisely because
> > they are stable and ordered and they are open to revision
> > at some later time if and when such a revision is warranted.
> 
> I agree.  Presently and in memory.
> 
> 
> > I mean, to say truth is provisional does not mean that it's
> > fluid or in flux.
> 
> It is amorphous.  I bet there are aspects of gravity you do not know,
> or
> have forgotten and may be remembered at another gravity pattern
> event.
> 
> 
> > Static concepts need a certain level of stability or they can't
> > function as concepts.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> > That's why they're called STATIC patterns. They're ordered
> > and stable and finite.
> 
> They are not finite!  Finite would be a thing-in-itself.  Patterns
> are repeated or memorized events or processes.  Habit.
> 
> 
> > This is not a problem and is actually quite necessary.
> 
> Ordered and stable is not a problem; finite IS a problem.
> 
> 
> > It's only a problem is these stable tools become rigid and
> > inflexible and not open to revision.
> 
> Then drop the word finite.
> 
> 
> > Otherwise, intellectual static patterns are the most evolved,
> > most open to dynamic change and the most moral level of all.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> > If you construe the MOQ in such a way that this highest level of
> > static quality is undermined and destabilized, the cause of freedom
> > and growth has also been undermined.
> 
> No need to exaggerate ever-changing into an absolute absurdity.  Nor
> exaggerate relative truths into an absolute absurdity, either.  In the
> MoQ,
> truths are relative.  At least that's how it was stated in Ant's
> treatise.  I am
> not talking about moral relativity, but epistemological relativity.
> 
> 
> >
> > That's one reason why we need definitions and concepts and words to
> > make sense and add up.
> 
> I agree, but I take these to be provisional and pragmatically useful.
> 
> 
> > This is the highest species of static good, not something to be
> undermined
> > or demonized or conflated with the disease from which it suffers.
> 
> I have not sat through so many lectures on QP, for my health.  I agree
> with
> you that intellectual static patterns of value are the highest species
> of the good
> as long it is understood that this remain provisional, patterns, not
> finite
> objects and independent self.
> 
> 
> > When Pirsig says that thinking takes you away from reality, he's
> saying that
> > static patterns take you away from DQ.
> 
> No disagreement here.  But thinking takes you away from unpatterned
> experience, which is something worth experiencing first-hand.
> Thinking and talking about unpatterned experienced is not even close.
> 
> 
> > He's saying there is a difference between concepts and DQ, not that
> > concepts are evil things to be gotten rid of.
> 
> I have never said concepts are evil.  I have never said intellectual
> patterns are evil.  Never!   I might say that to stop thoughts is
> mediation
> and a good thing, and meditation is a tried and true technique to move
>  towards becoming awakened/enlightened.  And I might say that
> we think too much and take our thoughts too seriously.  And I might
> say that lessons learned by 'not this, not that' are infinitely better.
> 
> 
> > He's just saying that concepts are derived from something too rich
> and
> > thick and overflowing and fluid to be captured.
> 
> I have no is some kind of personal description that I cannot relate to.
> 
> 
> > Concepts are taken from experience the way a bucket of water can be
> > taken from a continuously flowing river. It doesn't represent the
> river so
> > much as it isolates some small finite portion. As the bucket's wall
> puts
> > borders around a small part of the river, a concept puts borders
> around
> > a small portion of experience. The river and the bucket are both full
> of
> > water and so they are not ontologically distinct.
> 
> Nothing new here...   Stated in every entry-level Buddhist text.
> There's
> more to understand.
> 
> 
> > So it is with concepts. They are derived from quality and they are
> quality,
> > the difference being that one is dynamic and the other is static.
> >
> > Static is good. Stale is bad. Dynamic is good. Degenerate is bad.
> It's about
> > balance, see, and your reading puts these two out of balance.
> >
> 
> 
> Thank you very, very much Dave.
> 
> 
> Marsha
> ___
> 
> 
> 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