Re: MD What's the difference?

From: johnny moral (
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 07:21:04 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "Re: MD Quality events and the levels"

    Hi Platt,

    >Art is an experience. Like reality, it has no meaning beyond its own
    >presence. ("Meaning" depends on intellect which is secondary to
    >experience.) What is the meaning of a rose? A sunset? A sonata?

    What I meant by meaning was really the context that has to be there in
    advance. Not the secondary intellectual meaning. So the meaning of a rose
    would be all the biological and inorganic patterns that make up a rose, and
    which couldn't mean anything other than a rose. A sunset's meaning is the
    earth turning away from the sun. They are both beautiful and all that art
    stuff, but they are different from each other because of those static
    patterns. I'm simply saying that a sunset can't grow on a rose bush. That
    without the static patterns carrying forward into the future, there'd be no
    difference between them.

    > > I'm not talking about reflecting on it afterwards, I'm talking
    > > about being able to feel the heat of the stove as a bad experience. I
    > > without the static patterns of burns and pain and hot stoves stored deep
    > > the patterns of morality, it wouldn't hurt, it would have no meaning.
    > > There'd be no hot stove, and no one sitting on it.
    >Static patterns left in the wake of DQ are indeed necessary for you and I
    >to be here to experience anything. But do not restrict experience to
    >what we're capable of. As pointed out by many here, the MoQ posits
    >that experience occurs all the way down the line to atoms themselves.
    >The world is a world of experience.

    I agree. I'm just trying to get you to admit that the present and future is
    dependent on the past. That experience is dependent on what has been
    experienced before.
    >I agree with everything you say except patterns "can't help but change"
    >by simply interacting with other patterns. This is evolution by "oops" or
    >lucky accident that the MoQ rejects in favor of evolution by responses to

    Great, that's good. I felt I was taking a step in your direction. So, we
    agree that the future and past are connected. And I agree about betterness,
    I don't believe in oops either: Patterns are all moral patterns, and try to
    do what they should. They are a self-abiding disposition to do what ever it
    is that pattern is expected to do, and doing what is expected is good,
    that's why they try to do it. Being moral is good. But sometimes they
    can't do what they should, because other patterns may have gotten in the
    way, or maybe constituent patterns were hampered. Whenever anything
    unexpected (bad) ever happens, its cause can always be traced to something
    doing what it is expected to do (good). Yes, unexpected things can
    certainly be good in that we are happy they happened for our own
    intellectual reasons, and there can be things the we expect to happen that
    no one would call good, but I am talking about the ontological good, the
    good that all patterns value and brings us into the future.

    > > This has all been a long way of saying again that experience is of
    > > patterns of morality (even "mystical" experience, which is why mystical
    > > experiences are recognized as mystical experiences and aren't completely
    > > different from each other).
    >"Dynamic quality," because it's a word phrase, is a static pattern. But
    >the phenomenon it points to is an inexplicable, intuitive presence, or so
    >I would argue.

    Inexplicable only because we'll never know if have all the data to fully
    explain anything. And intuitive beacuse there's more to our understanding
    and experience than we think.

    > > I knew you'd say that. What you are rejecting is your responsibility
    > > how your actions affect other people. Morality determines your actions,
    > > and your actions, in turn, effect morality and other people. Believe it
    > > not, when you choose to wiggle your finger, you have to.
    >I don't believe it. But, that's OK. To you, the fact that "all is
    >is a good truth in the art gallery of intellectual patterns. To me, free
    >is a much better painting in the same gallery. I guess we have to leave it
    >at that. Or, perhaps we can agree on Pirsig's solution:
    >"To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of
    >quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic
    >Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free."(12)

    There's a huge moral issue here though Platt, so though you are free to move
    on if that's your will, I'm not content to leave it as an inconsequential
    matter of opinion: free will means that we aren't connected to each other,
    and that we exist outside of history and don't affect it, or what other
    people do. They have "free will" and do what they want. But our actions,
    in our doing them, affect morality, which affects what other people want and
    do. I noticed in another post you expressed the opinion that with out an
    assumption of free will, no one can be held responsible for anything. But
    it's exactly the opposite, the doctrine of free will is what destroys
    responsibility, because it absolves ourselves of the responsibility for
    affecting morality and other people's actions. The undeniable fact that
    morality made us everything we are can't absolve us of responsibility for
    doing the things we do, because all patterns are responsible for doing the
    things they do, whatever their adversity. Reward, respect, punishment, etc,
    are all essential motivators of our actions, social patterns of morality
    that affect the future as much as they reflect on the past.

    The Pirsig quote is true enough, but equating free will to the great cloud
    of indefinability and mystery isn't a very deep exploration into the
    subject, it kind of ducks the question.


    Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 19 2003 - 07:21:36 BST