[MD] SOM Problem @6523213: Relativity and ...

[Ham Priday]

Hi Marsha --


On Sunday, 1/15/2012 at 4:08 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> said to David Harding:

> Static patterns of value are processes, conditionally co-dependent,
> impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized, that pragmatically
> tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.
>
> Static patterns of value are ever-changing, whether representing the
> inorganic, biological, social or intellectual category.  Static patterns
> are NOT some concrete, abstract ideal ala Plato, unless you've
> misunderstood the MoQ.  Seems to me it is a lack of paying attention
> that make patterns appear changeless.

Marsha, I don't mean to be picky, but this explanation of quality patterns 
which you've recited many times leaves much to be desired in the way of 
clarity and logic.  A process is by definition a "procession" or 
"proceeding"; that is to say, a series of events whereby some goal or 
objective is advanced.  If patterns of value are "processes", they cannot 
also be "static".  The assertion that static patterns are "ever-changing" is 
simply illogical.

You also characterize Plato's ideals as both "concrete" and "abstract", 
which is a contradictory assertion, since these words are antonyms of each 
other.

I realize that your valuistic description of physical phenomena (objects) is 
based on Pirsig's ontology, so the contradictions are not entirely your 
fault.  Indeed, I often wonder if the author ever regrets having polarized 
Quality into "static" and "dynamic" forms, inasmuch as this only creates a 
new dualism in place of "subjects and objects".

In my opinion, the MoQ would have better served Pirsig's monadic reality had 
he stayed with "definable" and "indefinable".  As you know, I contrast "finitude and infinity" -- "relative" and absolute" -- in my ontology, neither of which pairing suggests that ultimate reality is anything less than perfect Oneness.  

But then, I do not posit Quality as the primary reality or pattern generator.  Rather, I believe it is man himself (the conscious subject) who actualizes experiential reality by objectivizing his value-sensibility.  

Essentially speaking,
Ham 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


> Within the MoQ, these patterns are categorized into a four-level,
> evolutionary, hierarchical structure:  inorganic, biological, social and
> intellectual. Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other
> patterns.  Patterns exist relative to innumerable causes and
> conditions (patterns), relative to parts and the collection of parts
> (patterns), relative to conceptual designation (patterns). Patterns
> have no independent, inherent existence.  Further, these patterns
> pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static pattern of life 
> history.
>
>> Secondly, there is a distinction is between the 'truth' of something and 
>> that thing itself. For instance there is a difference between the idea or 
>> truth of a tree and the 'treeness' that you experience.  Or to put it 
>> another way, there is a difference between the intellectual level 'truth' 
>> of a tree and the biological tree.
>
> In the MoQ there are Dynamic Quality/static quality.  Static patterns of 
> value are categorized by their function: inorganic, biological, social & 
> intellectual.  From a MoQ point-of-view there is no categories 
> differentiating between ''truth of something' and 'thing itself'.  What is 
> known to us is static patterns.  If the term 'truth' is to be used it can 
> only represent the conventional-static-provisional existence of patterns. 
> We can drop the word truth:  no relative truths or pragmatic truths.  That 
> is what is meant by conventional (relative) truths being labeled illusion, 
> anyway.
>
>
>> Finally, there is another important distinction between ordinary everyday 
>> static quality perspective and the perspective of DQ.  In ordinary, 
>> everyday land, static patterns do not change and they are very permanent.
>
> Static patterns of value are ever-changing, whether representing the 
> inorganic, biological, social or intellectual category.  Static patterns 
> are NOT some concrete, abstract ideal ala Plato, unless you've 
> misunderstood the MoQ.  Seems to me it is a lack of paying attention that 
> make patterns appear changeless.
>
>
>> In order for static quality patterns to change, that requires Dymamic 
>> Quality.  From the perspective of Dynamic Quality, or enlightenment, 
>> there are no patterns.
>
> Static patterns change because of Dynamic Quality.  Patterns, conceptual 
> and perceptual, are overlaid onto Dynamic Quality (as some have tried to 
> explain within the constrictions of language). They are not the same for 
> even one moment, but they change within a stable, predictability.
>
>
>> -David
>
> Imho, of course,
>
> Marsha