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

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

On Jan 17, 2012, at 2:30 AM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 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.

The word 'static' works fine with some explanation.  I think of static as representing "stable predictable patterns."  Like skin, always changing, but maintaining many major identifiable aspects that define the body.  


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

You are correct.  That was sloppy.  I should probably have said something like 'unchanging abstract ideals.'   


Marsha



> 
> 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 
> 
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _