[MD] truth, again

[118]

Hi Marsha,

Thanks for your contribution.

It seems to me that since ontology is the creation of meaning in the form
of "why", one cannot say that something can be ontologically indeterminate,
since it is the purpose of ontology to determine.  This would be like
saying that glasses are indeterminant.

I am not sure what you mean by "perceive".  With our brains/bodies we
create patterns that we then relate to.  This is what experience is, the
creation of patterns as the result of participation.  These patterns can be
as simple as a pin prick or as complex as the Schrodinger equation for
helium.



These patterns of value you refer to are one form of pattern we create,
which can be used to compare patterns in what you term a relativistic way.  It
must be considered that this comparison comes not from the patterns we have
created in themselves, but from the Quality residing between them.  An
apple is neither good nor bad until compared to another; therefore an apple
is not inherently good or bad.  These attributes of value are created by
that which distinguishes them one from another.  This distinguishing factor
cannot be pointed to, and can therefore be analogized to Quality.  Patterns
cannot "have" value (or Quality) since it is we who bring them to life.
Value comes from within.  This "within" can be analogized to DQ.  Value
cannot exist without participation.  Participation is dynamic and always in
the moment.  DQ can also be analogized to the present moment since it can
never be found, and is no thing.



It is important within MoQ to recognize that it is not a metaphysics of
“either/or” as so many zealots want to make it.  DQ can be many things
since it is no thing at all.



Patterns are a form of recognition.  The patterns we create of that which
we interact with are as recognizable traces which are stored in our
memories.  Often it is useful to analogize SQ to memory, and there is no SQ
in that which we cannot remember, which is the majority of our day.  There
is short term and long term SQ.  These are events which impart meaning of
some kind.  While the body is aware of each red blood cell that curses
through the veins, it chooses not to place value on them in the form of SQ.



That we create patterns is in no way solipsistic, since it considers such
pattern formation to be one of interaction between the individual and the
"outside".  However, it does open the possibility that we can change such
patterns.  When one becomes "in tune" with Quality, the old patterns are
irrevocably changed.  In other traditions this is termed enlightenment;
however I do not like the self-serving nature of that word.  Once one
learns how to listen to Mahler, the music is forever changed, this too is
enlightenment.



The point is to reconsider the objectification of the world and to see it
as an act of participation.  One cannot hold things at arm’s length and
expect to find meaning.  Only we can create that meaning.  Our current
condition is an objectified world without any acknowledgement of DQ.  It is
a world bereft of spirit.



All just my opinion, of course.



Cheers,

Mark





On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:40 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:


Hi Mark,

For me the MoQ is ontologically indeterminate (DQ), and epistemologically
relativistic (sq), though "we can perceive some [patterns] to have more
quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result our history
and current patterns of values."


Marsha




On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:09 AM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
>
> Yes, this is the Western approach.  Everything must be
> compartmentalized.  Thank you Aristotle!?
>
> Ontology/epistemology can be analogized to DQ/SQ.
>
> If we view knowledge as that which we create, which is appropriate to
> MoQ (see "ghosts of reason"), then the limits of knowledge are without
> boundary.  The nature is the human spirit (DQ), the method is logic,
> and the origin is Quality (DQ/SQ).
>
> This is how Quality is used to provide answers.  Pirsig, of course,
> has many such examples, which is what Lila is all about.  It is a
> shame that some see Lila as a manifesto of some sort.  The examples
> are just that, not to be taken as "truth".  Lila teaches how to use
> Quality to solve problems.  It was never meant as dogma, Pirsig is too
> smart for that.  However, we get the preachers who read from the "good
> book" and tell us all to obey what is written.  There was a prophet
> about 600 years after Christ who said the same thing.
>
> I am sure that Pirsig is more than a little disappointed at the turn
> Quality has taken.  He is probably also a bit ashamed at where this
> forum has gone.  His disciple has gone astray.  Well it happens to the
> best of them.  His quest for fame has done exactly what he predicted
> it would.
>
> Mark
>
> On Dec 3, 2012, at 12:59 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> e·pis·te·mol·o·gy
>>
>> noun
>> a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods,
and limits of human knowledge.
>>
>>
>>
>> If, if, if ...
>>
>>
>>
>> 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