[MD] The Dynamics of Value

Alexander Jarnroth alexander.jarnroth at comhem.se
Wed Oct 27 01:59:50 PDT 2010 

I've ordered the book about the older discussions, the one titled Child of
Lila. I think I'll get it within a few weeks.  I think I should check it out
before looking at older posts. But perhaps, as you said, someone being here
longer know which discussions could be of interest.

/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 27 oktober 2010 01:38
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value

Hi Alex,
Your skepticism is understandable.  I am certainly not one to provide
orientation.  It has been suggested to me that I go back and read previous
posts.  If I were you, I would visit the parent site MOQ.org to start.
 There are more detailed sites that expand on MOQ, but I haven't bookmarked
them.

The purpose of direction, I believe, is to introduce morality.  However, I
could be wrong on this so please don't quote me.  I'm sure some of the
senior members will jump in.  Guys?

Mark

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Alexander Jarnroth <
alexander.jarnroth at comhem.se> wrote:

> 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
>
> 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