[MD] Where does DQ end and SQ begin and SQ end and DQ begin? It's all bananas isn't it?

[david buchanan]

 david buchanan wrote:

These quotes have been selected and presented to clarify that one key point. Do they clarify it for you? Do you see how radical this is? We really cannot rightly understand the MOQ if we think of static patterns as actual objects, as in SOM. The MOQ, in effect, says that scientific material and common sense realist are one giant reification problem.


Marsha by repeating her much-criticized contradictory word salad:
I view static patterns of value as 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.


You can hardly accuse me of confusing static patterns of value with actual objects.



dmb says:
Right, your confusion is much worse than that. You've confused static patterns with actual reality in a way that's quite "unique", to put it politely. Apparently, you don't understand what it means to "have no independent, inherent existence" because that claim is contradicted by the previous sentence where you say, "Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns: patterns depend upon innumerable causes and conditions, depend upon parts and the collection of parts, depend upon conceptual designations".


Static patterns do not depend on conceptual designations, they ARE conceptual designations. And they don't exist in relation to each other or depend on causes and conditions because they are humanly constructed concepts, not reality. As I keep trying to tell you, reality is ever-changing, not static patterns. You're trying to define static patterns as if they were Dynamic Quality. You're confusing static patterns with reality in your own, with half-baked Buddhism and it's misapplication to a metaphysics that already has the Buddhist ideas within it. 


Here are the quotes from that post which are most relevant to your mistake - relevant because they tell you that static patterns ARE ideas, are concepts, as opposed to ever-changing realities.


"The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce what we know as matter. The scientific community that has produced Complementarity almost invariably presumes that matter comes first and produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ says that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea!" [LILA'S CHILD, Annotation 67] 

"It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that although 'common sense' dictates that inorganic nature came first, actually 'common sense' which is a set of ideas, has to come first. This 'common sense' is arrived at through a huge web of socially approved evaluations of various alternatives. The key term here is "evaluation," i.e., quality decisions. The fundamental reality is not the common sense or the objects and laws approved of by common sense but the approval itself and the quality that leads to it." [LILA'S CHILD, Annotation 97] 


And a couple more from previous posts that also make this point and are relevant to your confusion.

"The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophic tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although the world it talks about does."

"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."


Your description of static patterns conflates it with Dynamic Quality in all kinds of ways and this is predicated on a misconception of the MOQ's most basic distinction. Once you do that, everything that follows will also be a confused mess. That's what your often repeated word salad is; a confused mess. I could literally spend all day pointing out the various errors. It's like a Buddhist parrot threw up on MOQ.