[MD] The Dynamics of Value

Alexander Jarnroth alexander.jarnroth at comhem.se
Tue Oct 26 11:51:56 PDT 2010 

I wonder if that's not just a kind of tautology. You could call term any
change in the dynamic direction "improvement" but then you can't really call
the direction of the change a direction pointing at improvement.
But perhaps you meant something else?
I was thinking about orientation today. Perhaps could MoQ help you
orientate? That would rather be like creating a set of references. But I
think such a set would be termed static, rather than dynamic. So compared to
orientation dynamic quality would be drift. But perhaps you ought to be
ready to take the chance when it shows up even though you're drifting.

I don't know. I just can't see what use there would be in determining some
kind of direction.

/A

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of 118
Sent: den 26 oktober 2010 19:22
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value

Hi Alex,

Yes, you will find a lot of SEPs in this forum.  One of the contributors,
John, is fond of Adams as am I.

I believe, and I am ready to be corrected, that the MOQ does provide
direction.  If we use the vector analogy, the components of such a vector
would include "betterness".  This gives direction but not destination.  In
terms of seeking, I prefer the term creating.  If nothing else, we has
humans are highly creative.  It is this drive which keeps the development
going.  So, I would paraphrase you saying (with apologies) as follows:
"He who [creates will create everything], but he who doesn't [create] could
possibly [create] anything."

Cheers,
Mark

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Alexander Jarnroth <
alexander.jarnroth at comhem.se> wrote:

> Hello
>
> No harm in using that name.
>
> ***
>
> To me, it seems, that you would like to define DQ as change and then 
> saying that the direction in which the change, as a kind of vector, 
> points, should be termed essence. This "attractor", termed "source", 
> should then be absolute, in the sense of independent on anything.
> I, myself, presume such an independent existence of "that which is", 
> but I think that which is, in an absolute sense, is mentally 
> unreachable. But of course, well working concepts should somehow
correspond to this.
> However, I wouldn't term DQ as change towards something, rather change 
> from.
> Change from old concepts to new concepts (being this concepts 
> descriptive, evaluative or both). And I don't mean that a change away 
> from something leaves that thing obsolete.
> If all possible useful concepts form an infinite set, as I think it 
> does, then it just doesn't matter how much you know, there would still 
> be an infinity left. And if any arrow should point in an 
> infinite-dimensional space (as I somehow believe both the space of 
> concepts and the space of "what is" to be) you couldn't possible have 
> an arrow pointing in any specific direction in every dimension. I 
> think you could imagine an infinite-dimensional arrow somehow to be 
> pointing "everywhere", if you should have one such arrow there. But 
> then, this would be equivalent to having "change away from" as a value 
> in itself, because the direction of such a change could be chosen 
> arbitrarily and would the thus have some kind of correspondence with 
> this infinite dimensional arrow. The only change that would be 
> immoral, is in the direction towards what wouldn't work, but anyone 
> heading in that direction would just punish himself by necessity.
> Among the Nag Hammadi-texts there is one which I like, called 
> Allogenes the Stranger.
>
> There are a few lines which I like:
>
> "Even if he is endowed with blessedness and perfection and silence, He 
> is not the blessed one, nor is he perfection or stillness.
> But he is something existing THAT ONE CANNOT KNOW AND IS AT REST.
>
> Rather they are completely unknowable aspects of him, While he is much 
> superior in beauty than all good things.
> And in this way he is unknowable in every respect, And it is through 
> them all that he is in them all.
>
> Not only is he unknowable knowledge that is proper to him, HE IS ALSO 
> UNITED WITH THE IGNORANCE THAT SEES HIM
>
> Whether one sees in what way he is unknowable, or sees him as he is in 
> every respect, or would say that he is something like knowledge, he 
> has acted impiously against him, being liable to judgment because he 
> did not know God.
> He will not be judged by that One, who is neither concerned for 
> anything nor has any desire, BUT HE IS JUDGED BY HIMSELF BECAUSE HE 
> HAS NOT FOUND THE TRULY EXISTING ORIGIN. He was blind apart from the 
> quiescent source of revelation...
>
> ...Concerning all these matters, you have heard certainly. Do not seek 
> anything more, but go. ... It is not appropriate to dissipate further 
> through repeated seeking..."
>
> But of course you could use any definition that is useful, but I think 
> every definition is a simplification. It always misses something. It 
> can't include all and still be useful. So there can't be any final 
> answer. Everything that is useful, you can use, but I don't think 
> there is anything more. DQ to me, defined simply, would be "trying to 
> find out what you don't know, you don't know". You can't have a 
> goal-directed search then, because then you know what it is you don't 
> know, or you're seeking for something which probably doesn't is (or 
> exists).
> I have a little saying, in opposition to Jesus, which goes: "He who 
> seeks won't find anything, but he who doesn't seek could possibly find
anything".
> Concerning vision if you let an objects oscillate at about 60hz and 
> with the right amplitude, the object would vanish from the vision from 
> any humane being beholding it for some time. But what a person would 
> see, where the object once were, would not be a void, or anything like 
> that, but just the surroundings filling in.
> In the first book Pirsig used a metaphor which I liked. "To see in the 
> corner of the eye". The cells at the end of the retina only fire when 
> noting a change in the measured light. To you actually just see such 
> sudden changes in the corner of your eye. In the center of vision you 
> see a lot of details instad, but you must continually change the focus 
> to really see patterns or changes. But if you think you know what 
> you're looking for, you would always move the center of your vision 
> there, and just miss these little changes which could possibly be 
> noted in the corner.
> I think there was something similar in the Hitchhiker's guide to the 
> galaxy.
> It was called "somebody else's problem". It could only be seen if just 
> happened to note it in the corner of your eye. It's a good metaphor 
> anyway you put it.
>
> /A
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
> Sent: den 26 oktober 2010 06:55
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value
>
> Hi Alex --
>
>
> > So guess that what you're really interested in is what in MoQ was 
> > termed dynamic quality. I think you really shouldn't define that, 
> > because by defining it, you propose to know what it is, and then it 
> > wouldn't be dynamic or transcendental or whatever you may wish to 
> > call it.  I think that the ability to continuously reform yourself 
> > is the only "pattern" of dynamic to be found. You just have to be 
> > open minded.
>
> Yes, I am really interested in the primary source of reality, because 
> if we don't take it into account we will never have a complete 
> ontological thesis.
>
> However, I don't understand the premise you 've presented as an 
> argument against definition.  There is no logical reason that a 
> concept like DQ or Essence cannot be defined.  It may be 
> indescribable, unknowable, or beyond empirical reach, but then so are God,
Perfection, and absolute Goodness.
> Yet we have defined them, because we understand what such attributes 
> ultimately must be.  You say that "by defining it, it wouldn't be 
> dynamic or transcendent."  Why should a definition limit or affect the 
> nature of that which transcends word meanings?
>
> Back in the 15th century, a mathematician and astronomer named 
> Nicholas of Cusa theorized that God is the uncreated "Not-other".  The 
> significance of this theory is profound.  It has afforded philosophers 
> a valuable metaphysical tool - a definitive label for the ineffable 
> Source whose attributive nature is otherwise indefinable.  I have used 
> Cusa's First Principle as the metaphysical foundation of Essentialism.
>
> Does Dynamic Quality accurately name the Source whose "dynamics" are
> unknowable and whose "quality" is realizable only to man?   I think not.
> The term "dynamic" suggests a flow or movement like evolution, which 
> applies to the physical world but not to a transcendent source.  I 
> happen to believe this uncreated source does not evolve or change, but 
> is immutable. That's why I have named this metaphysically necessary 
> source Absolute Essence.
> It's a non-descriptive appellation, yet one that is relevant and 
> logically workable for an ontological scheme.
>
> Of course, I realize that it may not be appropriate in this forum to 
> depart "too much" from the author's vernacular.  At the same time, 
> constantly throwing words like "dynamic", "static", and "patterns" 
> around with impunity, without really knowing what they infer, tends to 
> conflate ideas into meaningless "word games" that have little bearing 
> on philosophical concepts.  I really hope Mark can successfully apply 
> his "logical constants"
>
> to metaphysical axioms so that we can avoid the misconceptions that 
> careless word usage generates.
>
> Thanks for your inputs, Alex (may I address you by that name?).  I am 
> only acquainted with Huxley's 'Brave New World," but will investigate 
> "Island", which, as you say, may present his idea of a more positive
world.
>
> Essentially yours,
> 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
>
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