[MD] theories of truth

[MarshaV]

Marsha:
My static term for 'Dynamic Quality' is unpatterned.  Unpatterned, as in not divisible, not definable, not knowable, without boundaries, 'not this, not that'.   Unpatterned, as in no-thing, or pattern, to change.  Dmb's statement "DQ, or reality itself is ever-changing. That's what 'dynamic' means" is contrary to RMP saying that 'change' "is probably the first concept emerging from this Dynamic experience..."   
 
Your feedback doesn't match my experience.  It is not a workable explanation.  


Marsha 
 


On May 31, 2013, at 10:34 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>> dmb says:
>> The contradiction is both clear and epic. 
>> Where Pirsig says, "the world is primarily a moral order" and "value is the fundamental ground-stuff of the world,"  DJH says, "All things are mystically degenerate".
> 
> Marsha:
> This is much like the contradiction where RMP says "Change is probably the first concept emerging from this Dynamic experience...", dmb says "DQ, or reality itself is ever-changing. That's what "dynamic" means".  
> 
> 
> [Ron sez]
> The problem is applying this concept cross-contextualy. Dave is correct when he states that when we are dealing with meaning
> we are dealing with static concepts, the concept of "change" is descriptive of Dynamic experience, if we are trying to define
> DQ in any general way it is probably in this concept of "change" or "flux"  because quite simply a metaphysics needs a pointer
> a place holder for the real DQ of the experiential "now". It is a frame of reference in which his entire explanation is centered
> around. Therefore Dynamic means "change" it's how we understand the "now" portion of experience in broad generalization.
> The explanation of "change" or the "why" or "what for" is the undefined "good" or "Quality". 
>  
> Remember, first there is Quality, then the division, Dynamic (a common word meaning "power" or "force") 
> therefore once one makes a divison, a distinction in experience one is now entering into static conceptions.
> The dynamic quality talked about and discussed and reffered to by RMP ........the one that is ever-changing
> in flux and perceptual IS NOT the indefineable "now" of experience it reffers to. It is a concept that is descriptive
> even though it describes the "now" as undefinable.
>  
> There is the indefineable "now" and then there are the words that state the now is indefineable.
>  
> There is DQ and then there is the word "DQ" what ties them together is meaning, intellectual meaning.
>  
> DQ is an intellectual pattern pointing to the "now". Since it is an intellectual pattern pointing to the now
> it does not conflict nor contradict in meaning to also say (intellectually) that it is ever-changing because
> it is descriptive and agrees with the now of our experience (tie to pragmatism) Therefore dynamic quality
> is a primary static Pragmatic "truth" the now changes and experience confirms this.
>  
> Remember DQ/SQ is an intellectual distinction made FROM experience, therefor it is a thought about experience
> and should not be mistaken or confused with the indefineable preintellctual "now" it refers to.
>  
> IF you DO...then ....you percieve a contradiction in meaning...OFTEN CONTRADICTION means
> that there is a misunderstanding ..It is an important tool in critical thinking. Contradiction is a virtue
> only as a warning sign of misunderstanding of meaning.
>  
> ...
>  
> AGAIN then,....to describe static patterns as everchanging is to create a conflict in static meaning and blur the 
> first division in the explanation of MoQ and create an immediate contradiction in what the terms "static" and
> "dynamic" mean within the context of Pirsigs explanation.
>  
>  
> HAVING SAID THAT
>  
> Making the assertion that all experience (both static and dynamic refferences) is everchanging
> simply confirms the initial assertion of the meaning the static term dynamic quality and to re assert
> it AFTER this conceptual split is to invite contradiction misunderstanding and confusion in meaning.
>  
> THIS is the criticism of your "Mission statement" or "mantra" you continually re-post...
>  
> One can only guess WHY since you do not seem to want any feedback concerning it.
>  
> If you could give a fuck what anyone here thinks, WHY WHY would you continually re-post it?
>  
> WHAT are you seeking?
>  
> ...
>  
>  
> ...
> 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