Re: MD Ironic Metaphysics

From: jhmau (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 22:06:12 GMT

  • Next message: jhmau: "Re: MD Absolutely objective"

    Hi Platt and All,

    > Hi Joe, All:
    >
    Joe
    > > The Metaphysics Of Quality according to Persig is that Quality is
    divided
    > > into Dynamic and Static Quality. Quality is the only absolute. The
    theory
    > > of How I know Quality is through undefined, instinctive experience, like
    > > how a baby learns. How I know the pattern of static quality, or how dq
    > > becomes a pattern is unclear?
    >
    Platt
    > I think we know patterns of static quality by what we see around us in
    > everyday experience. DQ comes as a surprise. DQ becomes a new
    > pattern when it is perceived as better than a current static pattern and
    is
    > "latched" when it becomes obvious that the new pattern contributes to
    > evolution towards betterment.

    joe: the questions I was trying to raise were How does a theory of knowledge
    necessary to MoQ differ from abstraction in SOM? What is the validity of
    our experience? Persig proposed an instinctive sense explaining how a baby
    learns, and how we know quality in a rhetorical composition. How does this
    apply to static quality? Your answer seems to be we experience static
    quality. I assume you mean it is instinctively sensed, and we use a word
    for the pattern. Is it your position that "latching" is built into the
    instinctive sense when "evolution toward betterment" is sensed?

    Joe
    > > It is also unclear how the instinctive sense
    > > is configured?
    >
    Platt
    > I would guess the same way as the moral order is configured, i.e., by a
    > hierarchy of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual levels.

    joe: as I understand your answer you would also see the instinctive sense to
    be configured with the ability to experience the moral orders. Our
    instinctive sense: is the moral order sensing, evolution judging, quality
    experiencing faculty of a sentient being. I don't know that I agree with
    that.

    Joe
    > > Moral orders, instinctively sensed, add complexity to an
    > > individual?
    >
    Platt
    > They are present at birth, but become more developed as growth occurs.

    joe: I appreciate your opinion. I wonder what the growth of awareness, or
    development of senses mean, as I try to stop time?

    Joe
    > > Static quality preserves an experienced Dynamic movement?
    >
    Platt
    > Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Many Dynamic experiences come and
    > go with no static preservation at all.

    joe: the instinctive sense can accept or reject an experience based on its
    judgement of the need for static preservation? The definition of the
    instinctive sense is becoming large.

    Joe
    > > Are
    > > moral orders absolute?
    >
    Platt
    > In the MoQ the moral hierarchy is absolute. As Pirsig says, "They are
    > exhaustive . . . nothing is left out."

    joe: I assume a Creator is not instinctively sensed?

    Joe
    > > "Impossible to evolve sentient from non-sentient forms." I agree, so
    what
    > > can be added?
    >
    Platt
    > A universal principle of betterment that drives evolution.

    joe: between 'betterment' and 'evolution' I don't know which is the cart and
    which is the horse, or how they are sensed?

    Joe
    > > Quality Is Value. I suggest There are Three absolutes: Quality,
    Existence,
    > > Purpose. There are three instincts, three brains to enable a movement
    from
    > > non-sentient to sentient.
    >
    Platt
    > I would put Existence and Purpose as subsets of Quality, but agree that
    > they are absolutes.

    joe: you are making conditions for a huge instinct sense in order to sense
    'subsets' in the way it is configured. I don't know how the 'instinctive
    sense' so configured would differ from the mind and will of SOM?

    Joe
    > > Sentient: a being with a reflexive awareness of self. The self is
    > > contained in one absolute at a time. Non-sentient: a being with only
    > > positive, or negative awareness, or with positive and negative
    awareness,
    > > but no awareness from a third absolute.
    >
    Platt
    > Would suggest using "Self-awareness" instead of "Sentient." Otherwise,
    > I agree with your insight. Doing something is what all aware entities do.
    > Knowing you are doing something with a purpose in mind is the grabber
    > that sets us apart.
    >
    > Platt

    joe: being certain enough to do something instead of riding off in all
    directions to me seems to be a different sulbject. Platt I do want to Thank
    You! for the courtesy of your response!

    Joe

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    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 : Mon Jan 20 2003 - 21:59:47 GMT