[MD] Definitions.

[David Morey]

Well folks you do not struggle with these issues alone, there is a wider
world out there, and it is more open than it used to be in certain places:

http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/speculative-materialisms-thinking-the-absolute-with-meillassoux-and-guattari-2/

David M

-----Original Message----- 
From: MarshaV
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:23 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Definitions.


On Feb 23, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Horse wrote:

> Hi Marsha
>
> I've got to say that I agree with DMB about the contradiction of terms 
> within your definition of self.
> If something is static or stable how can it be ever-changing?

Patterns may maintain a static, stable identity at the same time as they and 
their context are undergoing constant change. Think of the Ship of Theseus, 
or a parade (Hume) where everyone drops out but is replaced so that the 
parade is maintained, or the body with its cells constantly being 
replaced...


> If something is static or stable it tends not to change over time or if it 
> does change it changes slowly, thus retaining it's stability.

RMP is known as a Process philosopher, and process is change.  Within the 
interaction with an individual, a pattern is constantly changing as the 
context changes and each pattern event rolls back into itself to be renewed. 
But maybe read the essay on Whitehead and Pirsig by Andrew Sneddon.  Value 
is all about activity.

And there is the Buddhist perspective where change is central.


> If something is ever-changing then it tends to be unstable and/or chaotic.

My examples of Ship of Theseus, a parade and the body do not involve 
instability or chaos.  In fact the change is a requirement of proper 
functioning.



> Patterns of value that are stable persist over time which would appear to 
> be the antithesis of your definition.

I stress ever-changing because I like the Buddhist perspective, but it would 
be the same within process philosophy.  In Wikipedia RMP is mentioned 
directly.

"Process philosophy (or ontology of becoming) identifies metaphysical 
reality with change and development. Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, 
philosophers have posited true reality as "timeless", based on permanent 
substances, whilst processes are denied or subordinated to timeless 
substances. IfSocrates changes, becoming sick, Socrates is still the same 
(the substance of Socrates being the same), and change (his sickness) only 
glides over his substance: change is accidental, whereas the substance is 
essential. Therefore, classic ontology denies any full reality to change, 
which is conceived as only accidental and not essential. This classical 
ontology is what made knowledge and a theory of knowledge possible, as it 
was thought that a science of something in becoming was an impossible feat 
to achieve.[1]

"In opposition to the classical model of change as purely accidental and 
illusory (as by Aristotle), process philosophy regards change as the 
cornerstone of reality–the cornerstone of the Being thought as Becoming. 
Modern philosophers who appeal to process rather than substance include 
Nietzsche, Heidegger,Charles Peirce, Alfred North Whitehead, Robert M. 
Pirsig, Charles Hartshorne, Arran Gare and Nicholas Rescher. In physics Ilya 
Prigogine[2] distinguishes between the "physics of being" and the "physics 
of becoming". Process philosophy covers not just scientific intuitions and 
experiences, but can be used as aconceptual bridge to facilitate discussions 
among religion, philosophy, and science.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy

But the two-part essay by Andrew Sneddon is well worth a read.

>
> If you insist that static patterns of value are ever changing - i.e. 
> stable patterns are unstable - would you mind showing how you manage to 
> overcome what appears to be an inconsistency in your definition.

Philosophy often requires refining terminology.  I've tried to do that.  But 
you cannot please everyone.

"Unlike subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not 
insist on a single exclusive truth."   (LILA, Chapter 8)


> I think I see what you're getting at but this part of your definition just 
> doesn't appear to make sense and repeating it over and over offers no 
> explanation.

I suppose it is my poor attempt at defending my position when it is being 
attacked.  I am not attacking anyone and invite other perspectives.  I 
realize different points-of-view will appeal to different people.


Marsha


>
> Cheers
>
> Horse
>
>
>
> On 23/02/2013 09:18, MarshaV wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Re: self & static patterns of value
>>
>>
>>
>> One definition I provide is concerning 'self'.  If one asks:  What is the 
>> relationship between the individual and static quality?  I'd answer: "The 
>> “self” is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and 
>> impermanent static patterns: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, 
>> social patterns and intellectual patterns of value flowing in the 
>> infinite field of Dynamic Quality."
>>
>> My definition of static patterns of value is of repetitious and 
>> ever-changing process:
>>  Static patterns of value are repetitive processes, conditionally 
>> co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing, that pragmatically tend to 
>> persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.  Within the MoQ, 
>> these patterns are morally categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, 
>> hierarchical structure:  inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. 
>> Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns: 
>> patterns depend upon ( exist relative to) innumerable causes and 
>> conditions (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) parts and the 
>> collection of parts (patterns), depend upon (exist 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.
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> -- 
>
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production 
> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
>
> 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