[MD] Social Intellectual

[MarshaV]

Thanks Platt,

Problem is once explained I can see all sort of corrections I 
might want to make because of wrong, imprecise or inadequate 
wording.  Oh well, I guess that is the nature of the beast.  


Marsha  



On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Platt Holden wrote:

> 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
> 
> 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


 
___