[MD] Changes in 2011

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Ian,

On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 09:40:51 +0000, "Ian Glendinning"
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com> said:
> Just a couple of brief comments Tim,
> (Horse has asked for breathing space before any particular suggestions
> / actions .... don't jump to conclusions.)

[Tim]
I don't know what conclusion I jumped to.  I don't know what you are
referring to.  A little more help please.
 
> [Ian] You said
> "You had a bunch of posts after this one I replied to earlier.  I read
> some of them.  I saw then that you too might be a misfit!"
> [IG] Then you must agree your reading of the situation is based on
> very limited short term experience.

[Tim]
First, I don't see how your comment is connected with mine.  Regarding
yours, I have admitted so much to you already... I think it was toward
the end of my long post though, so I don't know if you got to it. 
Regarding mine, my knowledge about you, yes, that is very very limited. 
I have next to nothing I can say about you, or who you are.  Marsha
though, my experience is not that limited wrt Marsha.

> [Ian]
> You said
> " .. so 'progress' is "whatever happens"?!"
> [IG] No, the process matters. (There were 8 or 10 other words in the
> sentence you snipped those two from).

[Tim]
yes, there I snipped you.  But I did it sincerely, thus the '?!'.  Later
I addressed that same quote of yours again, wondering about the word
'evolve'.  I still do not know how I am to use your words and avoid the
conclusion that 'progress' is inevitable in every circumstance.  And I
still have even less of an idea of what I am supposed to imagine when I
think of your comment about you being for progress (this in the light of
Horses changes in 2011).

> [Ian]
> You said
> "  .. first, the pattern that was chosen seems to be 'not-xxxx'; and I
> don't see how that is higher quality than 'xxxx'.  I am baffled."
> [IG] You're baffled because you are objectifying (dare I say reifying)
> 'xxxx' as a particular pattern and creating a false dichotomy. I'm
> talking about a balance of sq and DQ interactions - a process
> involving many overlapping patterns, not an object subject to simple
> "accounting" of value.
> 

[Tim]
Dare as you like, that's fine by me.  First, I am not afraid of
objectification.  I believe in objects.  I also believe that RMP
believes in objects.  It is my understanding that his MoQ is only to say
that subjects and objects are not teh proper foundation of a
metaphysics; but subjects and objects do rightly spring from his
Metaphysics of Morality - as I understand it.  If I have reified
Marsha... well, first, I haven't yet taken a position on reification,
and I haven't given it too much thought either, so I'm not going to do
it here, but I do believe that there is another 'I' whom we call Marsha.
 She is a subject (and an object maybe too).  I attribute to her a bunch
of things she said, but what she is, and who she is, is mainly open -
this is just to say that the reifying I have done is not stringent at
all.

False dichotomy!  What?  We can argue about my evaluation of either side
of the dichotomy, but there really is a dichotomy here.  If you hate my
naming it Marsha, I can go with 'xxxx', but there really is a dichotomy:
xxxx is welcome here, xxxx is not-welcome here.  In either case you will
have "a balance of sq and DQ interactions - a process involving many
overlapping patterns,..." (at least to the same extent that you have had
this until now - I am not ready to endorse this precise language).  In
the former case those interactions, and the balance achieved, will
involve xxxx directly; and in the latter it xxxx will be involved only
indirectly.  If I wanted to build a machine to account for this
dichotomy... well, I couldn't: the choice is real, even if I could build
the machine we could only test one side of the dichotomy.  Further, I
suggest, that machine could be built ... though it would take too
long...  anyway, the machines have been build.  My parents built one. 
Your parents built another.  Horse's parents built the one that counts. 
Ian, we are the instruments that account for that value.  I wonder if
that accounting is 'simple'.  RMP has said that Quality is 'simple'.  In
fact, this is the toughest bullet for me to bite in the whole of the MoM
(I think I will switch to the metaphysics of Morality for good here):
Morality is simple.  But then again, ...

Anyway, whether simple or complex, I have conducted an accounting; and I
remain baffled.

Ian, on the other hand, if real differences cannot even be named...?

all the best,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail