[MD] [Bulk] Re: Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?
rapsncows at fastmail.fm
rapsncows at fastmail.fm
Sun Nov 7 16:50:05 PST 2010
Marsha,
my reply below,
Tim
[Marsha]
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 03:07:45 -0400, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> said:
>
>
> Greetings Tim,
>
> My words are carefully chosen as the appropriate analogy for
> my understanding and experience and insight.
[Tim]
No doubt they were carefully chosen, but why should anyone value the
object of an analogy? An analogy is a process, towards an object of
value. ANd it seems analogy is a valuable process in itself. But if
its the process that you valued I would have preferred this sentence to
the actual analogy!
> [Marsha] It's great that we
> may be close in understanding, but not necessary that we be
> identical.
[Tim]
if the goal of the intellectual level ('understanding') is to inform the
social level, isn't it then the goal of intelligence to reach some
static social platform upon which we both stand, identically? (Even if
that static patter were eventually to evolve to be synonymous with
Dynamic Morality itself)
> [Marsha] I prefer the word 'ultimate' as addressing the furthest reach of my
> understanding, which is ever-changing, relative and impermanent.
> As far as I am aware, I have no knowledge of anything 'Absolute'.
[Tim]
as I see it, you are treating your analogy (the object thereof) as
absolute. Isn't this where phaerus would say "you KNOW what quality
is"? Isn't Quality the ultimate absolute upon which Phaedrus hung his
metaphysics? Isn't that the point? There is an absolute. And you Know
it.
This is why I keep going back to the creation of the metaphysics, and
Phaedrus's admonition that, "strictly speaking', it is "immoral", and
also his admission that, "you never get it right".
I think we both admit that there is a barrier to our knowing ourselves,
intellectually, via perceptions. But Phaedrus said that before
perceptions, and before intellectualizations, there is a dynamic process
by which you Know Quality.
> [Marsha]
> The word 'flow' works because it matches the the movement of my
> thoughts during meditation. The river analogy, with its eddies &etc.
> seems a wonderful analogy.
[Tim]
I just worry that 'flow' (and I liked it more before in the context of
'a flow') is too constrictive. That is, I wonder if reality is more
complex.
> [Marsha]
> In turn I might wonder how your phrase "somehow absolutely real"
> doesn't put you more in my camp where 'somehow' seems nebulous,
> putting the 'absolute' beyond knowing for certain. Like you may think
> it's a rope, not knowing anything about it being an elephant. ;-)
[Tim]
I agree. In that sense I am most definitely in your camp. IT may be
that I am way way off when I build my metaphysics, but still, there is a
difference between trying and not-tying, between pointing away from it,
and pointing towards it. Now i'm fine if we are to say that it is all
teh same because we have never deviated from 'it', but then that brings
me out of the metaphysics all together. At that point, why even use a
word like analogy? if we are saying "it is all the same" because we
know it will somehow be wrong ("you never get it right."), we can't
really know that the analogy is mere analogy. Maybe by some dumb luck
it is not just an analogy. I could call the object of my attempts an
"approximation", maybe...
either way, the question is: isn't the goal of all this just to get out,
and by out I mean intellectually out of the intellectualization of a
distorted image of the past, and matterially, into a material pattern,
fairly constituted, and especially so regarding: social individuals -
organized based on the best that the intellectual level has to offer?
> [Marsha] So if we agree on "ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent,
> inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value,"
> I am pleased.
[Tim]
I think I have one correction: (actually two, the first is that, as I
recall, I left out 'of value' the first time) I have to leave off '
static patterns'. Perhaps it is best to put back "of value" --->
"ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent, inorganic, biological,
social, intellectual _________________ of value". I guess, we both
believe we need to use some uncertainty. I just think there is value to
using some in the blank too. I guess I'm suggesting that, to me, it
seems like, in saying 'static pattern', you are finding outlet for the
"absolute" you were lacking before. And that phaedrus would suggest
that that outlet should rather come as a faith in the absoluteness of
some You, which Knows Quality.
Tim
>
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 4, 2010, at 5:49 PM, rapsncows at fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> > Hello Marsha,
> >
> > [Marsha]
> >
> >> And of course we all exist, but as a flow of ever-changing,
> >> interdependent, impermanent, inorganic, biological, social and
> >> intellectual static patterns of value within a field of Dynamic Quality.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > "And of Course we all exist,"
> >
> > I'm with you
> >
> > "ever-changing"
> >
> > I think this is fine
> >
> > "interdependent"
> >
> > great
> >
> > "impermanent, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static
> > patterns"
> >
> > I will highlight PATTERNS just to be sure
> >
> > so I think we are real close. But...
> >
> > I have always refused to define myself. This one I'm cool with leaving
> > open. After my interchanges with Mark yesterday and "A" today, I am
> > liking the idea that it is mainly these static patterns that are truly
> > mine. But it seems that they must somehow be tied to absolute reality:
> > right? I don't know what part of that is mine, if any. There is part
> > of my that is the front of the train. There is a part of me that is in
> > the present, acting dynamically --- and continually augmenting my train,
> > my SQ. So all I'm saying is that I don't know if you have got this
> > quite perfect yet.
> >
> > secondly, the way that absolute reality preserves itself and me,
> > dynamically, interdependently, may also not quite be captured perfectly
> > by "a flow". Nor again, "within a field of dynamic quality"
> >
> > I don't think that I have been picking nits, but we seem to be very
> > close. perhaps switching to the equivalent "moral" will help. within a
> > moral arena.
> >
> > Thus,
> > And of course we all exist, but as ever-changing, interdependent,
> > impermanent, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static
> > patterns of value, somehow absolutely real, within absolute reality, and
> > somehow capable of mutual influence within this field of Dynamic
> > Morality.
> >
> > what do you think?
> > Tim
> > --
> >
> > rapsncows at fastmail.fm
> >
> > --
> > http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users:
> > http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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 - One of many happy users:
http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list