[MD] What's Emptiness?
118
ununoctiums at gmail.com
Sat Oct 16 14:23:55 PDT 2010
Hi Andrie,
Yes, infinite. I am not sure what your point is there except to perhaps use
the word infinite as something meaningful. I thought that creating a
metaphysics of quality was what this forum was for. If you don't think it
can be defined then you are left to the realm of speculation. I am simply
proposing to define aspects. You can go ahead and discuss something you
cannot define. Seems a bit pointless however.
Now, in terms of a limp equation. My understanding of your position would
be to call Newton's equations limp when they were proposed. It appears you
need some stamp of approval or something. Equations build useful structures
for metaphysics. If you do not like the physics approach then this is
certainly not apparent from your posts.
It appears that you would define Quality as something that flows between
Qualities. This is a bit circular, please explain. Are you saying that SQ
and DQ interchange through Q? Or is Q something in and of itself? The
equation you are proposing is interesting and could be elaborated, unless of
course you meant something different. If Quality progresses we can ask from
where and to where, thus defining the limits of the function.
If on the other hand you refuse to accept challenges to your accepted
belief, then I can understand that too. It is certainly easier to destroy
than to create.
Cheers,
Mark
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:44 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com>wrote:
> The spectrum of grayshades availiable between Black and white is infinite.
> So is the spectrum of quality between static and dynamic, the number of
> shades is infinite.
>
> without defining quality itself,...
> we cannot define any function for dq or sq.
>
> What you are trying to say, mark , with the limp equation, (love the
> inbetween variable), is probably this
>
> There is a constant flow of quality between static and dynamic quality, its
> a linear model, based upon progress.
> quality progresses.
>
> 2010/10/16 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
>
> > Hi Ham,
> > Some comments interspersed below, followed by an suggestion for an
> > equation-based formulation of Quality:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hey, Mark --
> > >
> > >
> > > The analogy to a prism is as good as any to use. By my
> > >> interpretation, Quality is that prism. Our sensibility is able
> > >> to detect the results of such differentiation. We cannot
> > >> create it, only interpret. Quality actively separates good
> > >> and evil, our sensibility mirrors it. Whether or not this is a
> > >> valid metaphysical premise is not my call, since I am not
> > >> entirely familiar with the rules governing such a thing.
> > >> Perhaps a little explanation of your statement to that effect
> > >> is appropriate.
> > >>
> > >
> > > If Quality is the 'summum bonum' or highest good, it could not
> logically
> > > differentiate itself into badness, malevolence, or depravity, let alone
> > be
> > > the originating source of these adversities. Even the Greek sophists
> > > realized that "man is the measure of all things", which means that man
> in
> > > the differentiating agent. In a valuistic ontogeny, such as the MoQ,
> > what
> > > man differentiates is Quality. In other words, he makes pure
> (absolute)
> > > Value relative in the finite terms of his own sensibility, which is how
> > > goodness and morality are distinguished or delineated from baseness and
> > > evil.
> > >
> >
> > As you define Quality you are correct. My interpretation is that Quality
> > spans the full spectrum. We are in search of high Quality in the same
> way
> > that all else is balancing towards its favor. Yes, we do appreciate this
> > differentiation but do not create it. In this way, man is not the
> measure
> > of all things, we are participants. The subjective sense of value is
> our
> > participation.The question posed in ZMM as to whether we need someone to
> > tell us what is good and what is bad suggests such appreciation.
> >
> > >
> > > The imperfection man experiences in the relational world is due to the
> > > nothingness of his sensible perspective. He experiences otherness
> > finitely
> > > and conditionally, rather than absolutely, and the object of his
> > experience
> > > is not Essence itself but only its value. Only by such a construct can
> > > Value be measured (i.e., realized) as the qualitative range or spectrum
> > of
> > > existential reality. Which is why the universe is not, nor ever will
> be,
> > > "absolutely moral" as Mr. Pirsig would have us believe.
> > >
> >
> > The notion of conditional awareness is interesting. I am not sure what
> > would be described as the conditions if not the spectrum of Quality. In
> > terms of measurement, that indeed is a construct. But such a construct
> is
> > not the true thing but a tool of guidance. Absolute morality needs to be
> > delineated by measurement in a social setting. If it intends the apex of
> > such a measurement then such an apex either exists or is being created.
> My
> > interpretation is that it does exist. Thus we create the notions of God,
> > or
> > whatever other nirvana is needed from an awareness of its existence.
> This
> > is a tool to provide direction which of course has its own flaws. If
> > absolute means the sum total, it is possible to create a metaphysics in
> > which we exist in absolute morality by definition. Something like the
> > physics concept of conservation of energy could be seen as absolutely
> > moral.
> >
> > >
> > > I think you also have to consider the teleological factor: If man is
> not
> > > the agent of value, what purpose does he serve in existence? And where
> > is
> > > Freedom in the life-experience?
> > >
> >
> > It could be said that purpose is derived from Quality. Freedom is a
> tough
> > one. In such cases I resort to non-physical creations. That is the
> entity
> > which experiences the experiences of the brain and body. If the physical
> > setting is a window, there is something looking through such a window.
> My
> > sensibility is not complete yet in this area, but growing. Freedom of
> > choice is inherent as this observer.
> >
> > >
> > > The dynamic and static separation is analogous (for me) as
> > >> differentiating between the concept of a tree and its constituent
> > >> parts. I believe the notion of change is the important
> > >> measurement in this case. We have Change, and we have its parts.
> > >>
> > >
> > > But "having its parts" in the constant evolution and diversity of
> > > experience is in no way a "static" situation. Transitional existence
> > simply
> > > does not fit this description. Nor is there any metaphysical
> > justification
> > > IMO for applying the label "dynamic" to an immutable source.
> > >
> > > OK, and now for my statement on the end result of Buddhist thought
> > >> resulting in compassion. There are many examples of this in that
> > >> philosophy, including Buddha himself, but I will use a psychological
> > >> description here. The ego is one of self centeredness (I don't mean
> > >> this in a bad way). The notion of "I" as an entity is the basis of
> the
> > >> ego.
> > >> The sense of self creates the notion of accumulation, that is
> increasing
> > >> the self. If one takes away the ego, this idea of accumulation
> > >> disappears;
> > >> accepting Emptiness does just this. (this may be a leap, but I will
> > >> leave it to your questions to try to describe further). When the idea
> > of
> > >> accumulation (or clinging) goes away, there is still much left.
> > >> What is left is the opposite (the Yang I think, the earth, the giving,
> > >> the woman, maybe it is Yin, I forget). So, perhaps (and now I am
> > >> just going on train of thought) Buddhism tunes the prism of Quality
> > >> so that one side is ignored.
> > >>
> > >
> > > And Dan said to Ron:
> > >
> > >> I don't know for sure, but I would say that the selfless existence
> > >> doesn't mean denying the self so much as it means realizing the self
> > >> doesn't exist in light of the Buddha's teachings.
> > >>
> > >
> > > How can self-denial or self-rejection possibly result in a more
> > > compassionate individual?
> > > Love and compassion are by their very nature emotive expressions of
> > > selfness. I can't imagine a "selfless" person being capable of even
> > > feeling love for another. And which "side of the prism" is to be
> > ignored?
> > > If it's the negative side of Quality, aren't your really forcing the
> > issue?
> > >
> >
> > I don't think I am forcing the issue, but I am not here to defend
> Buddhism
> > only to provide my interpretation. All I can say is that selfless love
> has
> > been claimed by many. The negative and positive tuning comment was not
> > well
> > thought out, and is off the record.
> >
> > >
> > > I'm afraid this isn't getting us anywhere, Mark. Maybe the solution is
> > to
> > > get back to the "constants" approach you've proposed for metaphysical
> > > discourse. At least it will focus our attention on one concept at a
> > time,
> > > which I believe is necessary for mutual understanding. But you'll have
> > to
> > > initiate such a discussion.
> > >
> >
> > THE QUALITY EQUATION
> > The use of constants may be a path. Variables of measurement are equated
> > through constants. I will begin with what I have read in these posts
> > concerning the breakdown of Quality, realizing that such a division is
> > simply a tool. The division of reality through physics into distinct
> > forces, and such, is also just an imaginary tool but it does provide
> > usefulness. As I have said before, my knowledge on where MoQ has gotten
> to
> > is not sufficient to provide any solutions, yet. So..
> >
> > Quality can be considered in two parts, dynamic and static. This has
> been
> > termed as DQ and SQ. From my understanding, SQ is a component of DQ and
> I
> > have not been made aware of any other components. So in some way SQ
> makes
> > up DQ. We start with an inequality:
> >
> > DQ does not equal SQ
> >
> > but
> >
> > DQ = fn(SQ)
> >
> > that is DQ is a function of SQ; we could also postulate that
> >
> > SQ = fn(DQ)
> >
> > where SQ is a function of DQ.
> >
> > This initial definition is important because it sets the premise to be
> > constructed. Of course we can put functions on both sides of the
> equation,
> > but that would not help much. So I will use DQ as the overriding term to
> > be
> > defined in the same way that the physics equation for force: F = ma is
> used
> > (force equals mass times acceleration).
> >
> > Now we have to define the function itself. Typically this is done
> > empirically through data collection followed by equation fitting. The
> data
> > in this case is can be found in radical empiricism (which I know only a
> > little about), or pragmatism (ditto), or other tools. Before doing so,
> we
> > can consider whether the relationship of DQ and SQ is one of simple
> > algebra.
> > That is whether DQ is simply made up of SQ
> >
> > DQ = Z(SQ)
> >
> > Where Z is a constant.
> >
> > I don't think that this would fly in this forum. So perhaps there is an
> > additional variable that can be introduced which we will call iB (this
> > stands for in Between). In this case either it acts on SQ, or adds to
> it.
> >
> > DQ = iB + SQ
> >
> > or
> >
> > DQ = iB(SQ).
> >
> > Now the chore is to break both SQ and IB into measurable (philosophical)
> > components.
> >
> > My attention span at this point is probably the same as yours, and
> > wondering
> > what other posts there are to read besides this nonsense. So I will stop
> > with that. The question left on the table is: can we provide further,
> > component based, definitions for SQ?
> >
> > Cheers for now,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > >
> > > Cheers for now,
> > > Ham
> > >
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> parser
> 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
>
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list