[MD] RMP says,

[Jan Anders Andersson]

Marsha

That is why I call it an act of balance. A static pattern is an act of balance to the undefined Quality. Balancing is an attempt to define quality but nothing will last forever, therefore Quality will never be fully defined. The better the longer it works. Chess rules for example is a high quality static pattern because a lot of people like to play it. The periodic table is another, because a lot of particles tend to behave that way and it tells us how to handle the clay and make pottery that pays.

Jan Anders


26 apr 2013 kl. 10.49 skrev MarshaV:

> 
> 
> First from the beginning of the book:  
> 
> RMP:
> "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics. Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity. It would be almost like a mathematical definition of randomness. The more you try to say what randomness is the less random it becomes. Or 'zero,' or 'space' for that matter. Today these terms have almost nothing to do with 'nothing.' 'Zero' and 'space' are complex relationships of 'somethingness.' If he said anything about the scientific nature of mystic understanding, science might benefit but the actual mystic understanding would, if anything , be injured. If he really wanted to do Quality a favor he should just leave 
> it alone. 
> 
> "What made all this so formidable to Phaedrus was that he himself had insisted in his book that Quality cannot be defined. Yet here he was about to define it. Was this some kind of a sell-out? His mind went over this many times. 
> 
> "A part of it said, 'Don't do it. You'll get into nothing but trouble. You're just going to start up a thousand dumb arguments about something that was perfectly clear until you came along. You're going to make ten-thousand opponents and zero friends because the moment you open your mouth to say one thing about the nature of reality you automatically have a whole set of enemies who've already said reality is something else.'The trouble was, this was only one part of himself talking. There was another part that kept saying, 'Ahh, do it anyway. It's interesting.'"
> 
> (RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 5)
> 
> 
> 
> And then from the end of LILA, RMP writes:
> 
> RMP:
> "Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher mystic one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries to control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic within a static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. So why try? 
> 
> "It's like trying to construct a perfect unassailable chess game. No matter how smart you are you're never going to play a game that is 'right' for all people at all times, everywhere. Answers to ten questions led to a hundred more and answers to those led to a thousand more. Not only would he never get it right; the longer he worked on it the wronger it would probably get."
> 
> (RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 32)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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