[MD] The MOQ difference

[MarshaV]

For the record,  goodness = useful.     



On Oct 5, 2010, at 4:15 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> Andre, 
> 
> I, in no way equate, 'ever-changing' with 'TOTALLY different'.  No way!  No where!  
> And I have stated repeatedly that 'relative' does not mean 'all is equal'.  Within the 
> MoQ, for example, social static patterns of value are a higher value than inorganic 
> static patterns of value.  And the reference to nihilism is unexplained and nonsense.  
> What you can say about the Conventional Reality is that its evolution was based on 
> goodness, that relative truths (static patterns of value) are useful.  
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 5, 2010, at 3:24 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:
> 
>> Dave to DMB:
>> 
>> There is no such thing as a static pattern. Another case of RMP privileging
>> rhetoric. Stable patterns, sure, but static in the sense of never changing,
>> fixed, eternal there are none. Frankly you keep getting all over Marsha for
>> using "ever changing" in regard to static patterns when I for the life of me
>> cannot think of one static pattern that does not change.
>> 
>> Andre:
>> Correct Dave and this 'difficulty with Pirsig's terminology that should be noted
>> ( as Anthony observes in his PhD)is the ambiguity of the term 'static' due to its
>> connotations with the movement of physical objects even though this isn't the sense
>> in which Pirsig (1994) understands the term.
>> 
>> 'According to the Metaphysics of Quality all objects, whether they move or not, are
>> physical patterns of value and are therefore static patterns of quality. Static and
>> Dynamic Quality patterns are not properties of objects. Objects are a property of
>> static quality'.
>> 
>> 'A proposed modification therefore is the term 'stable' which avoids this ambiguity but
>> retains the essential meaning of 'static' that the MOQ requires'. (p76)
>> 
>> There is stability in the patterns as they denote repeated arrangements. Marsha, by using
>> the 'ever changing' rhetoric makes a 'stable' discussion impossible by arguing for a
>> relativism based on this 'ever changing'. This makes any discussion, any walk down the
>> street, any talk of a tree ridiculous as from the first moment to the next the discussion,
>> the walk (my body, my shoes), the street, the tree has changed.
>> 
>> The 'properties' may change but the value is 'stable'.
>> 
>> To reduce everything to 'ever changing' stuff,and ,by implication, TOTALLY different, to the
>> point of not being able to say anything meaningful about it is to reduce our 'conventional world'
>> to a nonsense. It is nihilism, a cul-de-sac a dead end street.
>> 
>> It is to fundamentally misunderstand the DQ/sq relationship.
>> 
>> PS, I thought it was you Dave, who referred to Austin's 'Zen and the Brain'. I am chewing on it.
>> Thank you for attending me to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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


 
___