[MD] aggregates of grasping

[118]

Hi Ham,
Good to hear from you.

As I read (slowly) through your book, I find that much of it conforms
with (and expands) my views,.  I do need to adjust some minor aspects
where I extend your anthropocentric idea to the universe as a whole.
More on that in our off-line chat.

On 3/6/12, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Mark, Joe, Marsha, Andre, Dan, and All --
>
> On Mon, March 5, 2012 at 6:49 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Through this forum we can create opinions as "far out" as they may seem.
>> Discussion can help us reformulate.  It is always part of creation.  We
>> will
>> never know enough to stop our opinions from progressing, so their is
>> never "enough".  Give it a shot.  There are never any stupid opinions.
>> No matter what other members may proclaim.  They just have an agenda.
>> Such agenda is static, and not becoming of MoQ's striving towards
>> "betterness", IMO.
>
> Having refrained from participating in this forum for several weeks because
> my ideas did not fit the official MoQ doctrine, I've been amused (and
> occasionally astonished) by some of the opinions recently posted here.
> Mark's "open door" solicitation has persuaded me to "give it another shot."
>
> Although I'm not convinced that "agendas are static" or that the MoQ is a
> "striving towards 'betterness'", it is clear to me that all philosophical
> formulations are at base "opinions".  Otherwise they would not be
> philosophical formulations but scientific theories based on logical
> formulation of empirical data.

Agenda's are static if they do not allow for growth.  This is true in
many situations including politics, science, humanism, etc.  I would
also say, however, that scientific theories are also "opinions", they
just have widespread agreement in many cases and are "easier" to
convince others of because of the successes of science.  As it is
being created, science is all about opinions.  The idea that the
universe is expanding is an opinion, as is man-made destruction of the
planet.  Science has reached the height of priesthood, where we simply
accept what is told us.  As a scientist, I see the personal side of
science, and know that scientists are no different than the rest.
They have a lot invested in their opinions.

Any logical formulation is the manipulation of data into a prescribed
theory.  That is, the data is interpreted (connected) in a way as to
provide support for a theory.  Any investigation of a theory is with
the theory in mind.  Therefore data can be viewed as support because
that is how it is interpreted.  The same set of data can be
interpreted to contradict the theory.  It all depends on the model
used for such interpretation.  This is why science is never complete,
and will ALWAYS change.  Because of the "agreement" between scientist,
established theories are hard to challenge.  Such challenging often is
rebuted through a "witch hunt".  For the priests of science like the
power and assurance of being "right".  No different from the flock
that follows them.
>
> I find it interesting that our beloved Marsha, who has consistently denied
> her selfness, now denies her ability to form opinions, as well.  After
> reviewing Mark's analysis of her March 4 dissertation on feelings and their
> ownership, Marsha responded:
>
>> I don't know enough to form an opinion.  It is extremely interesting,
>> though,
>> and I hope to learn more.
>
> One can only wonder what all those quotes posted from the Vedanta and
> Buddhist scholars are intended to express if not her opinion.  Marsha has
> certainly formulated her own opinion of what a SOM pattern is, since
> "ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent, static patterns
> of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value" has become the
> mantra that identifies her.

Yes, there is a fear of being "wrong", especially from those who do
not command rhetoric as well as others.  So it becomes a game of
presentation and then hiding, or "slipping between".  One cannot fault
some for this as it is probably a matter of life's history and
"genetic" make up.  Outside of that is of course Will, which brings it
all together.  So we cannot fault anyone for a mantra, but only offer
suggestions for becoming "unstuck".  I say this humbly since I am as
stuck as the rest, and am always striving for a clearer and more
consistent creation of reality.
>
> And friend Joseph is so fixated on evolutionary theory that he cannot
> explain human Will or Intellect as anything but a "product of passions and
> feelings", ...

>
> [Joe, on 3/4]:
>> For myself I view feelings as emotions and imho indefinable emotions
>> have metaphysical reality DQ in MOQ. "Categories" is a product of
>> evolution and emotions as being indefinable function without intellectual
>> logic.
>> It is only the intellect which does this, and such intellect stems from
>> the passions.
>> Passions/Feelings are more closely allied than Passions/Intellect in
>> evolutionary description.  Decision can follow passionate reality as well
>> as intellectual reality.

This is not my interpretation of what he is saying.  He is drawing an
analogy between what we term "the passions" and an indefinable place
from which we operate.  One would have to understand MoQ, to
comprehend this.  As you know, he does not use the term "evolution" in
the standard biological sense.  But then again, nobody in this forum
does.  Evolution in MoQ is a description of the nature of change,
which is guided by the drive for improvement.  We all participate in
that in many ways.
>
> I think we've over-complicated the functional and experiential categories of
> existence in an effort to conform to the Quality hierarchy.  The Pirsigian
> worldview is almost incomprehensible as a consequence of such analysis.

It is indeed incomprehensible to some...  A paradigm switch is needed
from the subject object orientation ("self-other"?), to a unifying
principle for the creation of self and other.  This may be no
different from your Essentialism in its creation of self and other, it
seems to me.
>
> For example, if 'free will' is only "an intellectual static pattern of
> value," as Marsha asserted, then freedom is an exclusive property of Quality
> and "human freedom" is a meaningless concept.  And if Value, Love, or
> Morality cannot be equated with feelings, as Dan maintains, then how in the
> world do we realize or define them?   Surely both Free Will and Value are
> immanent sensibilities that drive human behavior and lead to the development
> of moral concepts which (we can only hope) will improve our society.

Yes.  However, your use of terminology of "sensibility" does not give
free-will its due.  For free will exists outside of self and other.
It cannot be categorized as one of the "sensibilities", for those are
separate and are defined by our interaction with what is.  Free will
is not part of that, but is what creates such interaction to begin
with.  My opinion, of course, and not necessarily the position held by
the members of this forum.

Morality and such are born of feeling as we say in the human
interpretation of such things.  But from where to these feelings come
from?  Certainly we can point to biological foundations for such
feelings, but what is it that gives them meaning to us?  It is more
than some simple "survival" paradigm, since the need to survive can be
said to be a "feeling" in itself.

When we "realize" these things, it means that we come into contact
with them.  It is no different from "realizing" a solution.  This
implies that such solution exists and that we are becoming acquainted
with it.  We become acquainted with morality, we do not create it.
For what power do we have to "create" such a thing?  How is it that we
can create something from nothing?  All we can do is give it a human
form.
>
> Frankly, I can't conceive of Value (Quality) "bettering itself" or Free Will
> having anything to do with the evolution of the universe.  These are
> distinctly human precepts which arise from man's relation to his essential
> Source.  But that's because I view the universe as a dynamic
> anthropocentric system as opposed to static patterns created by an esthetic
> "moral" reality.

This would be no different from Essence "negating" itself.  Such
conception requires careful construct, and cannot be understood from
outside.  Yes, man can have a "relation" with his essential Source,
but what is it that defines that relationship?  Why is one
relationship different from another?  If you stick to the purely
material side of things, one could say that everything has a "way of
interacting" (pain, pleasure, and all that resulting stuff).  But what
is this Way of interaction?  Why in your opinion do we have some
values which are more important to us than others?  MoQ can answer
this one.
>
> But Mark says "there are never any stupid opinions."  So, I'm hoping he's
> right and that these comments will not be taken as an offense to either RMP
> or the opinion contributors I have cited.  I can assure you, at least, that
> my "far out" opinions are not part of any "agenda" to disparage the MoQ.
>
> And thanks to all for your indulgence.

Cheers, Ham, and, I have provided you with a bucket of my opinions,
and some questions asking you to elaborate what you mean by your
assertions (such as why MoQ is confusing to you) to the group.  I
would suggest you stay away from the confusing "negational" theory,
and speak in common terms that we all agree on.  Just a suggestion, of
course.
>
Best regards,
Mark
>
> 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
>