Re: MD Two Theses in the MOQ

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 23 2005 - 08:36:01 GMT

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Holy Holy Holy Trinity"

    Paul, Platt, Ant, Bo, et al

    Some great stuff in here Paul.

    Like Ant, I think the emphasais on the exposition in Lila being a
    pragmatic attempt to elucidate the undefined in ZMM is a good angle.
    Quality remains "absolutely" undefined, but pragmatically the MoQ
    SQ/DQ/4-levels provide a "useful" framework.

    A few specific quotes to respond to
    Paul: Value is pre-intellectual but value judgements aren't, they are static.
    Platt: Are value judgments ideas or feelings?
    Paul: I consider 'feelings' to be biological quality and 'ideas' to be
    social and intellectual quality.
    Bo: (Earlier) The fact remains that Phaedrus saw intellect as the S/O "splitter"

    Excellent - these "experiential" words are so loaded with established
    traditional connotations that the working clarification is essential
    ... and I agree with you.

    Paul, your biological vs socio-intellectual is key. Both genetic and
    memetic levels of filtering and interpretation intervene when the mind
    judges the value. So Platt, both interventions, bio-genetic (Paul's
    feelings) and socio-intellect-memetic (Paul's ideas) contribute to the
    "judgement" aspects - things that make the experience of value less
    immediate and more interpreted. (You should recognise these
    distinctions as pragmatically identical to those considerations about
    brain / mind functioning - eg your hypnosis / question.)

    Bo, I repeat an earlier plea ... when you say "intellect" (in the
    quote above) you mean good-old-fashioned classical pre-MoQ intellect.
    My intellect has evolved to include MoQ, my intellect is a
    static-dynamic-physio-bio-socio-intellecto-quality splitter not an S/O
    splitter, hopefully I'm not the only one. Let's not leave the word
    intellect behind in the past. Paul reminds us of the inclusive /
    recursive definition needed, vis ...
    (1) The ultimate truth of paramartha-satya
    (2) The conventional truth of samvrti-satya.
    Both (1) and (2) are part of samvrti-satya.

    Note that Paul's Ultimate / Conventional is the same distinction Ant
    and I highlight as absolute / pragmatic.

    Good stuff
    Ian

    On 11/22/05, Paul Turner <paul@turnerbc.co.uk> wrote:
    > Platt,
    >
    > I've just realised that I didn't answer this question properly:
    >
    > >>Are value judgments ideas or feelings?
    > >
    > >Paul: Because of the implication of reflection and/or deliberation I would
    > >limit value judgements to being social and intellectual. What do you
    > >think?
    >
    > Paul: I should have started by saying that I consider 'feelings' to be
    > biological quality and 'ideas' to be social and intellectual quality. Then
    > my answer should make more sense.
    >
    > I have a newborn baby in the house, so I'm blaming sleep deprivation!
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > Paul
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Wed Nov 23 2005 - 09:15:05 GMT