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

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Andre,
continued,
Tim


> 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]
As I understood it, RMP suggested Quality as the metaphysical fundament,
therefore all else comes from it, somehow.

You have either caught me at a bad time or at teh end of my tenure here,
either way, I cannot think of DQ as meaningful and communicable at teh
moment; perhaps it could be either or, but not both at the same time. 
More talk seems to make things worse, not better.
 
> Andre:
> [SNIP] 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]
I keep going back to RMP's admission that (page 399 of 409, Lila),
"Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act
since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a
higher mystic one."

I also prefer the substitution that RMP specifically avoids (he says
morality and quality are the same, but he chooses quality - I think
because he saw karmic garbage with 'morality').  Anyway, in this sense,
I think the MoQ (ZAMM and LIla), is just one man's attempt to help
people get past the barriers that are hindering their moral selves.  I
think I recall a paragraph in ZAMM about this too: that the solution
would be a really simple, subtle change: individuals behaving better,
collectively.  In this sense, I think the metaphysics part is just a
detour in the abyss, trying to pick up lost souls - like every other
well-intentioned religion.

> 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]
I like this.   But see above.

> 
> Tim:
> It is to get out, not in.
> 
> Andre:
> Not sure what you mean here...

[Tim]
the metaphysics, intellectualization to the utmost, is somehow in an
'in' that is, strictly speaking, immoral.  The point is to get out of
it, and into the moral.  IF the metaphysics is trapping people rather
than pulling them out of the trap...  This is why it might be, strictly
speaking, immoral.

> [Andre, continued] ... 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 prepar
>  e'. 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).

[Tim]
thanks for this.  I will have to look into MR. James for real.  There is
one big caveat I will offer though: I don't see any way to even
contemplate a result devoid of an intention (I see that DMB addressed
this too).  The idea that thought is
to assist belief does seem to line up with the MoQ (mystic is a higher
form of evolution than intellect).  And that a belief is a rule for
action... this fits in nicely with teh way I have been using faithe
recently (the vast majority of which is by now subtle and mostly
sub-conscious).  But this puts the action, the faithe, in this unknown
now (into which intellectualization, and the metaphysics itself, cannot
proceed).  Your perceptions are observations, measurements, of past
intentions.  Understanding comes by relating the two.  if you can't
account for how your actions will get jumbled by the time you can
observe their effects, intention becomes impossible.


> 
> 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.

[Tim]
I think this is an important clarification you make: "You do the judging
and the 'choosing'...".  I would then leave out 'based on your
analogies'.  And then I would pick up with 'which, hopefully, result in
something better'.  And I would leave it at that.  Or, I might say
something like, and I hope you like better.


Thanks Andre,
this action proved pretty settling for me,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web