[MD] self

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --



> My intention in the last post was towards harmonization of concepts.
> The analogies may be weak at present, but they are just doorways.
> Often I find the term dynamic to be misleading since it gives the
> sense of promulgating change.  However, as a foil to static it works
> to a degree.  Dynamic Quality can be seen as both a backdrop to the
> world of "appearance", as well as a cause (if we use the cause-effect
> paradigm).  Of importance, IMO, is the interplay between the two,
> since the relationship is not simply directional or one-way.  That is,
> the static can cause the dynamic as well.
>
> For me, the concept of Quality represents the sum total analogy.
> It is then metaphysically divided up for discussion and advancement.
>
> Your debating is part of the process, otherwise this would be a history
> forum.  I enjoy jousting with you.

Likewise.  By the way, you never answered the question I asked back on 9/29:
In your opinion, is the MoQ a deterministic philosophy?

Your answer will help me size up your philosophical position.

Thanks, Mark,
Ham


>
> Mark
>
> On Oct 9, 2011, at 12:03 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey, Mark --
>>
>>
>>> First of all, thank you Ham, you are more eloquent than I.
>>
>> I appreciate the compliment, Mark.  But if I am more eloquent, why do the 
>> ideas you articulate get more response than mine?  (On second thought, 
>> don't bother; it's because that devil Ham is misconstruing the MoQ to 
>> promote his own philosophy.)
>>
>>> The way in which Marsha uses static/dynamic is indeed prone to
>>> confusion.  How about this analogy.  The great ocean is deep.  On its
>>> surface, there are waves which appear and then disappear.  Our life
>>> here is brief, just another wave, but what is causing our waves lasts
>>> forever and is an integral part of us.  So in this case, the dynamic
>>> represents potential (which is similar to your Essence), and our
>>> existence is the representation of such potential (your negation).
>>> With an understanding of Quality one can make inroads into a more
>>> meaningful existence.  In fact, it can change one's whole daily
>>> behavior and attitude (gumption if you will).  Does your belief in
>>> your metaphysics impact every moment of your daily life?
>>
>> Yes, I think belief in a transcendent Essence makes my life more 
>> meaningful when it comes to understanding the purpose of human existence 
>> in terms of man's need for spiritual fulfillment.
>>
>> You have posed the ocean/waves analogy before, and it would be a good 
>> metaphor for Ultimate Reality/Existence.  Unfortunately, since the "great 
>> ocean" is static relative to the dynamic "surface waves", it would 
>> reverse Pirsig's paradigm which makes reality "Dynamic Quality" and its 
>> ever-changing patterns "static".
>>
>>> Or, how about this, a book is static, the story it tells is dynamic.
>>> There is a relationship between the static and the dynamic, and both
>>> interact like the Yin and the Yang.  Quality is the Circle which
>>> encompasses, Value is the interface between the static and the
>>> dynamic.  (don't know if this works quite right, but I will leave it
>>> in for discussion).  And let's not forget the soul, which is the white
>>> paper upon which the words of the book are written.  Life plays on
>>> one's soul like music fills silence.
>>
>> Again, Mark, I see the "book" as an analog for the immutable Source, and 
>> the unfolding "story it tells" as dynamic existence.  Also, I see no 
>> difference between the "circle" of Quality and the "interface" of Value. 
>> (Didn't Pirsig equate the two?)  So your analogies are still problematic 
>> for me.
>>
>>> Yes, personal value is relative to the person.  However, what is
>>> creating that value, exists beyond the person.  You have a formula of
>>> double negation, I simply call it Quality.
>>
>> What is creating the value is the relation of the sensible agent (person) 
>> to the whole (Essence).  I describe Value as "the affinity of the self 
>> for its estranged Essence".  Negation works the other way; it divides the 
>> cognizant agent from the essential Source to create difference, thus 
>> making possible the autonomous realization of a range of finite values.
>>
>> Thanks for the analogies, Mark, even though they appear to be more useful 
>> for my ontology than RMP's.
>>
>> Best,
>> Ham