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

[Andre Broersen]

On Nov.5 I said:

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:(Returned from the break Tim and ready to cap this off).
You can 'classify this Comment' of mine by placing it in a little box called 'provisional'.

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

Andre:
I read your 'I'm fine with intelligence arising of Quality', to mean that intelligence emerges out of Quality (i.e. DQ). I challenged this. If I have misunderstood you I apologize.

Tim:
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.

Andre:
Not sure if I understand your use of the term 'submitted' to [the/a MOQ]but appreciate the general gist of what you are struggling with. If I have read the contributions in the archives and more recently, properly, I get the feeling that must of us, upon reading ZMM experienced a 'jolt' of recognition and identification with what Phaedrus was describing and arguing for. I do not think this is purely a rational, intellectual process. Perhaps the appeal of the MOQ, for me, can be likened to what William James terms 'conversion' usually the result of the outcome of a crisis, depression of some sort where futility, meaninglessness, despair are felt at their most intense expression. A ZMM and subsequent LILA, where the MOQ is laid out is, for me, the highest quality metaphysics produced yet. A finger pointing to... .

Tim:
Anyway, this is, at least in part, why I have been suggesting that this whole metaphysics is, maybe, "strictly speaking", "immoral".

Andre:
If you think this you do not understand the basic premise of this metaphysics.'The idea that the world is composed of nothing but moral value sounds impossible at first'.(LILA,p101)

Tim:
It is to get out, not in.

Andre:
Not sure what you mean here but let me share with you my understanding of the philosophy of pragmatism to which the MOQ adheres. Firstly, the MOQ is a static intellectual pattern of value. It is an idea...a thought. For William James, pragmatism is a philosophy of action. I also believe that the MOQ is a philosophy of action. James believed that 'the meaning of thought is 'the production of belief' and that 'beliefs...are really rules for action'. He argues that we can evaluate actions better by their results than by their intentions or by their origins. 'To develop a thought's meaning' he wrote 'we need to determine what conduct it is fitted to produce: that conduct is for us its sole significance'. James' argument is 'fruits not roots'. He goes on:'to attain perfect clearness in our thoughts of an object, then, we need only consider what effects of a conceivably practical kind the object may involve-what sensations we are to expect from it, and what reactions we must prepare'. He wanted to avoid verbal quibbles. 'There can BE no difference which doesn't MAKE a difference'.( The Heart of William James' edited by Robert Richardson, p183).

If it is 'to get out' you are correct. Get out and do. No wonder James rejected the 'In the beginning was the Word' and replaced it with 'in the beginning was the deed'(!)...and 'not in', correct(!)... stop the verbal (word) quibbling. You can think and argue all you like but if it doesn't make any difference in action, don't bother. As Phaedrus says, if a metaphysics doesn't improve the world a little, then don't bother.

Tim:
What is the view from the front of the train?

Andre:
Pure experience. I am not sure there is a 'view'. Phaedrus suggests that 'The leading edge is where absolutely all the action is. The leading edge contains all the infinite possibilities of the future. It contains all the history of the past'. (ZMM,p277)

Tim:
What if you are looking back at the train,from the very front of the train?

Andre:
With the qualifier mentioned above,looking back from this moment,now? Static patterns of quality. Analogy upon analogy...'all the history of the past'.

Tim:
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'?

Andre:
I think that Dynamic Quality does not judge or choose anything. You do the judging and the 'choosing' based on your analogies which, hopefully, result in something better for you.