Re: MD A Question of Balance / Rules of the Game

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 09 2005 - 09:58:48 GMT

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Longer transcript of ZMM?"

    Aaaaagghh,

    Yet another thread hijacked, by yet another occurrence of the hot
    stove metaphor for immediate experience .... ;-)

    The point in this thread was the "heat" of interpersonal abuse, and
    the drawing of any moral lines on our behaviour on MD.

    Ian

    On 11/8/05, David M <davidint@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    > Rebecca
    >
    > Not bad, not perfect.
    >
    > 'Value quantifies quality' you seem to say, something in it, but somethings
    > can
    > have very high value or equal value but have very different qualities.
    >
    > Also, how does DQ relate to SQ. Is the cosmos not teeming with SQ,
    > bursting forth with new SQ, is this abundance and creativity not what
    > DQleaves in its trail?
    >
    > David M
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Rebecca Temmer
    > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:32 PM
    > Subject: Re: MD A Question of Balance / Rules of the Game
    >
    > Hey Case,
    >
    >
    > You wrote:
    >
    > > I have argued repeatedly that having a multiple undefined terms is folly.
    > So
    > > I will present as nearly as possible in sound bites, the main terms of the
    > > MoQ as they seem Good to me.
    > >
    > > Quality - Undefined - the Tao. When apprended in its purest form it
    > reflects
    > > the union or balance between opposites. It is the monism from which all
    > > dualisms spring. As Lao Tsu put it: "When named it is the mother of all
    > > things." Perceptually it is harmony or balance. To pursue it is to follow
    > > The Way of Virtue. It is undefined not for mystical or esthetic reason but
    > > for practical reasons. It is 'reality' and 'reality' is unknowable as
    > > Heisenburg, Godel, Wilson, Hume, Kant, and just about anyone who thinks
    > > about much can testify. Our apprehension of Quality is limited by our very
    > > nature.
    > >
    > > Value - Is the quantification of Quality. The hot stove is Low Quality or
    > > better yet Negative Quality. It repels us. But consider for a moment a
    > > merely warm stove. It may not be so hot as to burn you. It may be the only
    > > place in the room to sit. If it is turned on and the temperature is
    > > increasing, this increase can be measured and assigned a numerical value.
    > > You can even take note of which specific Values individuals find to hot to
    > > handle. Value is undervalued in these MoQ discussions. Values can be
    > > assigned to dualistic opposites in many ways. We like or dislike things
    > > esthetically. We give it a thumbs up or thumbs down. Or we like it a lot
    > and
    > > give it 4 stars. Or Values can be specified with increasing precision
    > > leading to math and physics which are all about the relationships and
    > > interaction of Values. The point being that in the MoQ both physics and
    > art
    > > are all about the interplay of Values.
    > >
    > > Dynamic - A much abused term in these discussions. It's meaning seems to
    > > range from the undefined to the mystical to the intellect to the warm
    > > fuzziness of the ineffablly groovy. Mostly it seems to be redundantly
    > > identified with Quality itself. Pirsig himself contributes to this
    > > confusion. The term has extraordinary Value when taken a face Value. That
    > is
    > >
    > > Dynamic means change, flux, motion. From the wave property of matter to
    > the
    > > a priori concept of time to the paradigm shift in ideas; the dynamic can
    > be
    > > assigned Value from positive and negative to specific quantification of
    > rate
    > > of change.
    > >
    > > Static - The opposite of dynamic as any dualistic pole should be. Static
    > > means stable, fixed, orderly.
    >
    >
    > > I would love to go on and on about how useful this version of MoQ is but I
    > > have thus far been unable to get anyone to even say that it is bad or
    > > misguided. I do not find this formulation to be at odds with what Pirsig
    > > says. I also think it cuts through many of the arguments going on here and
    > > paves the way for intergration of the MoQ into a broad range of subjects
    > > from evolution to theology.
    > >
    >
    > Rebecca replies:
    > So, I'll agree with you on pretty much the entire thing.
    > That's what the terms static (not moving) and dynamic (moving) mean.
    > If you would hop over to the thread I started on the Holy Trinity, on which
    > I will post a response to DMB's question perhaps we could continue this
    > conversation. :)
    >
    > Looking forward to your response...
    > Rebecca
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 10 2005 - 22:09:21 GMT