From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Nov 19 2005 - 19:26:50 GMT
Hello everyone
>From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org, owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
>Subject: RE: MD Two Theses in the MOQ
>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:30:01 -0500
>
>Hi Paul, Dan, Group::
>
>Paul's "Two Theses" gets confusing. For example:
>
>Paul:
> > >So, as with all knowledge according to this thesis, the intellectual
> > >pattern of the MOQ is itself generated by a procession of value
> > >judgements, which leads us to thesis (2).
>
>I translate this as: First, DQ produces value judgments, then value
>judgments produce intellectual patterns. It's a two step process.
Hi Platt
Thank you for writing. It seems to me that it's attentiveness to Dynamic
Quality that produces value judgements; it seems a mistake to say anything
at all about Dynamic Quality itself. Dynamic Quality is best thought of as
"not this, not that."
This also seems to pertain to your "Calling all atheists" post. By
erroreously equating Dynamic Quality with creative development we get
statements like: "the creative power of DQ--an indefinable, mysterious force
-- resides at the heart of the MOQ."
For me, this statement only perpetuates confusion. Rather, it's
attentiveness to Dynamic Quality (experience) that resides at the heart of
the MOQ. There's nothing mysteriously God-like about "it." It seems to me
that this is why Robert Pirsig says that the MOQ is anti-theistic, as David
Buchanan reminds us with his excellent "Anti-theism in the MOQ" post.
>
>So far so good. This goes along with DQ being pre-intellectual, pre-
>conceptual, pre-idea. But then, Paul writes:
>
>Paul:
> > > In this
> > >chapter we see a transition from the Dynamic Quality that *produces*
> > >intellectual value judgments to the explanations that are the *result*
>of
> > >those value judgments
>
>Now we learn that DQ produces more than value judgments. It produces
>INTELLECTUAL value judgments. The difference between plain old value
>judgments and intellectual value judgments isn't explained. Further, these
>intellectual value judgments produce not intellectual patterns but
>"explanations."
If we look at attention to Dynamic Quality (a definition of consciousness)
as the key to the formation of value judgements, then the formation of the
explanations (the results of value judgements) are indeed intellectual
patterns of value, or ideas.
>
>A bit further on, Paul introduces something new -- "ideas."
>
>Paul
> > >"The [first thesis of the] MOQ says that Quality comes first, which
> > >produces ideas, which produce what we know as matter..
>
>I thought Quality (DQ) produced value judgments, not ideas. I thought
>ideas came later and that they are also known as intellectual patterns
>and/or explanations.
Again, it is attention to Dynamic Quality that produces value judgements
which produces ideas which produces what we know as matter. Reach out and
touch the desk in front of you. Your idea of desk is filtered through the
experience of desk, an experience built up over the course of a lifetime. So
even though it may seem as if desk is really there, apart from the you
touching desk, desk is really part of the idea of you that has taken a
lifetime to construct. Without the idea of you there would be no desk.
Therefore, just as the idea of you comes before you, the idea of desk comes
before desk.
>
>Finally, Paul writes:
>
>Paul
> > >Secondly, the term 'pre-intellectual', which is mostly used within the
> > >context of thesis (1), could be modified to 'pre-static' (i.e. the
> > >experience of indeterminate value prior to its contextualisation into
>any
> > >static patterns) when used within the context of thesis (2) so as not
>to
> > >erroneously relate Dynamic Quality solely to the intellectual level.
>
>Here we seem to be back to "DQ produces value judgments" although
>"indeterminate value" suggest no value judgments (quality decisions) have
>occurred. "Contextualization into any static patterns" seems to be a fancy
>way of saying intellectual patterns, but I'm not sure.
It seems to me that Paul is talking about intellectual experience here,
which I commented on in my previous post. If it were me, I'd replace
"contextualisation into any static patterns" with "contextualisation into
intellectual patterns." As context doen't seem to apply to the other levels,
we needn't worry about erroneously relating Dynamic Quality solely to the
intellectual level.
>
>So from my point of view, rather than clarifying differences between ZMM
>and Lila, I'm more confused.
>
>Questions left hanging are:
>
>Do value judgments occur on a sliding scale from good to awful?
Of course they do.
>Are value judgments ideas or feelings?
They can be both.
>Are ideas intellectual patterns?
According to thesis (1): No. According to thesis (2): Yes.
Perhaps this quote from chapter 2 of Buddhism: Plain & Simple by Steve Hagen
will help to clarify: "We've all heard the expression 'seeing is believing.'
But the fact is that believing is not true SEEING. In fact, they're
opposites. Belief is at best an educated, informed conjecture about Reality.
In contrast, SEEING -- raw, direct, unadulterated experience -- is the
direct perception of Reality Itself." (Caps originally in italics)
So, if we apply the MOQ to the above quote, it would seem that Paul's thesis
(1) equates to SEEING while thesis (2) equates to believing.
>Is there anything intellectual about value judgments?
All in good time. Remember the hot stove example in LILA.
>Do explanations always consist of intellectual patterns?
Yes and no. Again, look to the hot stove example.
>Are intellectual patterns always "contextualized?"
Yes I should think so.
If so, how?
Culture.
>Does "contextualize" mean that intellectual patterns are always relative?
Culturally relative. No one lives in isolation, in a vacuum.
>Can an intellectual pattern be Dynamic?
I think we'd agree that an intellectual pattern is more dynamic than a rock
on account of the idea's propensity for change. Yet it seems best not to
equate Dynamic Quality with intellectual patterns of value.
Thank you for reading,
Dan
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 : Sat Nov 19 2005 - 19:32:35 GMT