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

[118]

Dear Mr. Ham,

Now that you know that Marsha is our main interpreter and spokesperson
in MoQ, I guess the cat is out of the bag.  Pirsig himself stated that
Marsha has the final word.  I just got this from Wiki-youboattube
recorded during a Skope teleconference with RMP, while he was on a
recent cruise:

"In my opinion, Marsha is the true spokesperson for the metaphysics
which I presented as MoQ.  She has pointed out my many mistakes in
both Lela and Zen and the Start of Motorcycle Maintenance [3].  I have
made the appropriate corrections as she suggested [4].  This will all
be released in my upcomming Wikileak called "Marsha, As It Maybe, For
Certain, Will Be: An Inquiry into Relativity" [5].

[3] Robert M. Pirsig "Reflections on Marsha" (2011) Academicaly
Pressed.  pp 666-666.
[4] Unpublished observations while sailing on "de Nile"
[5] Patent pending, USP4Me4Me4Me4Me

[Loud shreak and splash...]
Pirsig: [unintelligable]... stear the boat skipper!  This cruise ship
is heading straight for the rocks!  Skipper?  Skipper?  Has he jumped
ship again? (Music from the movie Titanic is heard in the background):

"...Near, far, wherever you are
I believe that the heart does go on
Once more you open the door
And you're here in my heart
And my heart will go on and on"

Jack: "Go on, I'll get the next one".

Rose: "No, not without you".

Jack: "I'll be allright. Listen, I'll be fine. I'm a survivor,
allright. Don't worry about me. Now go on, get on..."

"You're here, there's nothing I fear,
And I know that my heart will go on
We'll stay forever this way
You are safe in my heart
And my heart will go on and on."

Jack: "You must promise me...that...you won't give up. No matter what
happens. Promise me now Rose".

Rose: "I promise".

Jack: "And never let go that promise".

Rose: "I'd never let go, Jack. I'll never let go..."

[Lound noise sounding like a giant Pizza being tossed]  SSSWOOOSH!!

Interviewer:  "Mr, Pirsig.  Are you still there Mr. Pirsig?  Mr.
Assange, we seem to have lost connection..."

J.A. (interrupting):  "It doesn't matter we got what we needed, we
need to show the World!  Now publish it!!"

The above taken from Wiki-Wiki, Leaky-Leaky, smelly-smelly, ono-ono


Mr. Ham, thank you for your interest in MoQ, but obviously your
inadequate learning has led you astray.  I suggest 3 hail Marsha's and
a large donation to the MoQ fund as repentance.  People need to eat,
you rich old man!

Sincerely yours,
Marky-Marky-Mark (repeated 118 times)

ps: This communication will be kept confidential as with all of our
communications with interested parties.  The persona mentioned in this
letter are fictitious and have no relationship with people living or
dead.  All efforts have been made to protect those people that we do
mention from identity theft.  Consult a doctor before reading this,
use at your own risk, we have never heard of you.  "No, never heard of
somebody called Ham, detective, although we eat it for breakfast all
the time".

On 1/16/12, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> 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.
>
> 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
> 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
>