[MD] Is Quality a monism?

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Thu Jun 28 21:18:32 PDT 2012 


Mark,

Having dealt with many months of your jibber-jabber and circular questions, your post brings this Schopenhauer quote to mind:

“We will gradually become indifferent to what goes on in the minds of other people when we acquire a knowledge of the superficial nature of their thoughts, the narrowness of their views and of the number of their errors. Whoever attaches a lot of value to the opinions of others pays them too much honor.”
 (Authur Schopenauer)

I explained my use of 'hypothetical' in the first few posts in the 'expanded rationality' thread.  For more, as you once replied to me, I think you'd be better off if you figure it out for yourself.  Or not. 


Marsha



On Jun 28, 2012, at 11:00 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> You are giving me a choice.  Well that is noble of you.
> 
> I do not want you to go "down" all the way to Nothingness, for that is
> easy.  All logic is based on such nothingness.  That is simply a
> deconstructionist way to go about this, and will always end up in some kind
> of faith like "explaining it to its base does not do it justice, therefore
> I will not even try; I just believe it to be so".
> 
> How about you start with "not this, not that" and then build up to your
> concept of monistic.  This is the creative process that humans are endowed
> with.  So, how do you get from "not this, not that" to your monism?  I am
> sure you can do this downwards (as you assert in your post to me), and so,
> you just need to start when you end up with deconstructionism and reverse
> your logic to go the other way.  Simple, this is called creative thinking.
> That is MoQ.  It starts with Quality, and then builds a metaphysics around
> it.  It does not start with monism and arrive at Quality.  Pirsig was aware
> of Quality through some cloudy memory of having been there, and he did his
> best to explain it with common terms.
> 
> So, there you have it.  Your choice whether you want to "explain" or not.
> You can always just avoid having to put your brain through
> that exercise and remain at "not this, not that".  We all love vegetables.
> 
> So, are you a woman or a vegetable?  Do you have an intellect, or is it all
> confusing in there?  Is it all simply "not this, not that", or can you make
> something out of it?
> 
> Be creative, not destructive, it is much more interesting.
> 
> In terms of your meaning of hypothetical, you do not have to even get
> metaphysical about it.  I just want to know what you mean by that word.
> However, you have to know what you mean in order to explain it to me.  If
> you do not know, then no answer is required.  There are lots and lots of
> things that I do not know.  Usually I do not post on ideas that I haven't
> thought about, though.  This forum is about learning from each other, not
> about winning an argument.  Please, teach me.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:43 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> How far down would you like the explanation to go?  Should I take it all
>> the way down to 'not this, not that' or stop at some arbitrary level of
>> your choosing?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 28, 2012, at 6:10 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I am not quite sure what you mean by monistic.  Could you explain this
>>> a bit more?
>>> 
>>> What does it mean to you if something is hypothetical?  Is it used as
>>> "a possilble truth"?  Or, are you using the word differently?  What
>>> does it mean that knowledge is hypothetical?  I think I am missing
>>> your point (hypothetically that is).
>>> 
>>> M
>>> On 6/28/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> 
>>>> First, I do believe I was writing about the MOQ being monistic, where
>>>> reality, the world, is said to be nothing but value.  Second, I changed
>> the
>>>> word I used for expanded rationality for hypothesis to hypothetical.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 28, 2012, at 1:37 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Ron,
>>>>> 
>>>>> First of all, Marsha considers any knowledge to be a hypothesis.  A
>>>>> hypothesis is a form of knowledge.  This would make knowledge of
>>>>> something a form of knowledge.  Anyone can see that this is simply a
>>>>> play on words, and will not lead anywhere.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For Quality to be a monism, it must be conjectured to exist as an
>>>>> entity, as described by Marsha as "the source of all that exists".
>>>>> That is, it must exist separate from "all that exists".  I do not
>>>>> believe that this is a useful interpretation of Quality, for then we
>>>>> revert to religious aspects of such metaphysics.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Others, including myself, have suggested that Quality is "The Event".
>>>>> That is, it does not underlie any static phenomena, but is the process
>>>>> of such phenomena.  This Event is occurring in the present tense.  An
>>>>> event can have a tendency, and in MoQ this tendency is "betterness".
>>>>> In Taoism this "event" can be translated as "The Way", which reading
>>>>> of the Tao Te Ching will reveal (if read in that way).  The tendency
>>>>> of the Way is to defy resistance.  One issue in the modern world is
>>>>> that we tend to embrace resistance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> By describing Quality as the cause of results, we are not left with
>>>>> anything static to hold on to.  One can personalize such Quality by
>>>>> describing it as an Intention, or a Relationship.  A relationship
>>>>> exists between two things (for example), but is NOT either of those
>>>>> things.  In fact, one can simply turn the logic and say that the
>>>>> relationship CREATES the two things.  I have brought this in to the
>>>>> discussion a number of times; one time poetically by describing
>>>>> Quality as "the golden threads" that lie between, create, and holds
>>>>> together.  In another analogy which I have used, Quality is like the
>>>>> "event" of lava pouring through a fissure.  Always coming anew and
>>>>> building.  Not to be taken literally of course.
>>>>> 
>>>>> When I explain Quality to others around here, I have found that by
>>>>> using the "event" metaphor, those listening can intuitively grasp what
>>>>> I am presenting, and stay away from the concept of monism.  I am not
>>>>> sure if this is useful to you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Mark
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 6/28/12, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Marsha had stated to Joe:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The context for my comment was quite an indictment of the intellect's
>>>>>> shortcomings by Schopenhauer.  I think, though, that the value can be
>>>>>> improved if the dualism implied by knowledge-of-some-thing is
>> understood
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> remains as hypothetical. The MoQ is afterall a monism (with Quality
>> the
>>>>>> source of all that exists.)  At its highest, static (patterned)
>> quality
>>>>>> may
>>>>>> represent the best value available at the moment, but it does have its
>>>>>> fallibilities  At least, imho.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ron asks:
>>>>>> Some questions directed at Ant-
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is Quality a Monism? firstly, it should be clear we are speaking of
>>>>>> static
>>>>>> quality and when we are speaking
>>>>>> of monads we are speaking about unity, oneness, whole. It tends to
>> lend
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the idea of completeness.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The encapsulization as it were.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ..
>>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 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

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list