[MD] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: Is this the inadequacy of, the, MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Andre,
My comments below,
Tim

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:07:17 +0100, "Andre Broersen"
<andrebroersen at gmail.com> said:
> Tim previously:
> 
> 'I'm fine with intelligence arising of Quality'.
> 
> Andre previously:
> then I truly do wonder if the books have been read. Mr. Pirsig has made 
> very clear statements about these things.
> 
> Tim now:
> what did Mr. Pirsig say? As I recall, quality was the source.
> 
> Andre:
> I assume that, by using the term 'intelligence', you are referring
> manipulations/activities/functions at the intellectual level.

Tim:
fine, let me ask: from where comes the intellectual level?  Don't bother
anew here; you get to it immediately - from previously.


> Andre:(I stand
> corrected of course).

Tim:
but let me interject: how am I to classify this Comment of yours? 
according to the MoQ?

>Andre: The intellectual level emerged out of the social level which emerged out
> of the organic level which emerged out of the inorganic level. There is
> no 'straight' line from 'Quality' (leading)  to 'intelligence'.

Tim
who's the judge of 'straight'?  Also I never said 'straight'.

>Andre: Its evolutionary development is the result of countless valuations
> beginning (for the sake of argument) with experience at the inorganic
> level.

Tim:
why not begin at Quality, like the MoQ?

> 
> Andre: I also noticed that you use Quality (capitalized) and quality. I am
> unsure if you did this intentionally.

Tim:
perceptive...  I have just been playing I think...  on and off.  There
is something behind it though that I am playing with, just to be sure. 

Because it may be causing our difficulty in communication, i'll just
point out something now.  I am here to discuss the MoQ, but I have not
yet
submitted to it.  My very first post in this thread... therein I somehow
stated taht I was not comfortable with this level structure appearing
out of nowhere, metaphysically.  Intelligence seems to be a real thing
even if this whole metaphysics were to fall apart.  For my part, when I
was reading the book I kind of had a metaphysics of mine with which I
was comparing...  I'm not sure how it works out, the comparison; I
probably never would
have bothered to figure it out 'on my own'.  When I go back to the
source of my metaphysics, I don't really mind calling it 'Quality' (this
is when I'm 'on my own' of course); in fact I don't care what it's
called when i'm on my own.  Anyway, there is still something I call it. 
Whatever.  I also tend to think of a first cut when time throws me back
into dynamic reality.  For what it's worth: possible-impossible.  This
seems to come in at least as early as static-dynamic.  And it is
probably, I suspect, that thinking so simply is in error.

Anyway, this is, at least in part, why I have been suggesting that this
whole metaphysics is, maybe, "strictly speaking", "immoral".  It is to
get out, not in.  It is not to attain a highly developed static
structure intellectually, but to get you back to the first cut:
static-dynamic.  Remember where this all started: in a classroom before
some (first year) college students, with an UNANSWERED question: what is
qUALITY?  The answer was displayed: there is quality, and YOU know what
it is!

> Andre: In LILA, Pirsig does this as well
> but with a meaning: Quality (capitalized) is used interchangeably with
> Dynamic Quality whilst quality refers to static quality, static patterns
> of value(ations).This value is 'based on' the harmony they 'produce', the
> freedom, increased flexibility to be gained, in other words Quality... as
> in betterness.

And so when you talk of 'betterness' you are talking of the function
which is to be used for deciding within Dynamic Quality, right?  And
'betterness' (though now's 'betterness') is to be strictly  maximized,
ideally, right?

And, is 'betterness' definable (even if not perfectly so by us)?  I
mean, you are getting close (to
somewhere), but are the ideas of harmony AND flexibility sufficient?
 
> But I could be wrong of course. And if I am I gladly hear it.

We started this by you presenting a beef with my having said, 'I'm fine
with intelligence arising of Quality'.  Yes, the capitalization there
should be considered meaningful.  What is the view from the front of the
train?  rable rable rable...  What if you are looking back at the train,
from the very front of the train?

Anyway, if it is produced at the front of the train, that which judges
intelligence; and it is because intelligence is the top of the static
structure; and if Dynamic Morality chooses amongst possibilities,
plural: what is wrong with saying: 'I'm fine with intelligence arising
of Quality'?

Tim

> 
> 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
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be