[MD] Social Intellectual

[Platt Holden]

Marsha,

I join Mary in thanking  you  for an superb explanation of your views. Very 
convincing!

Platt

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mary" <marysonthego at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Social Intellectual


> 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