From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 01:27:37 BST
Hi Scott,
I think Quality (pure Quality, not DQ), aka Morality (pure morality, not
prudence) is primary, but I don't think it can be said to be a context,
because there is nothing there with it, "there is no there there", and a
context requires at least two things and a place and time and all that.
Quality is characterless, undefined, neither good nor bad, because where
there is pure primary Quality, there is nothing else there to notice
anything about it, everything else is within it. There is no point in
looking to that primary quality for anything, except as a source of wonder,
so you can't say it is a context that other contexts can get themselves
square with. It doesn't contain the truth or anything like that.
I don't think "DQ" is primary though. The way we usually use it, it is an
ideal formed by SQ beliefs. And the way I think of it, it is a power in the
service of SQ, trying with infinite care to continue to realize all
expectations. I'm still pushing the "expectation" understanding of morality
and quality, because we are familiar with how an expectation carries both
value judgement and prediction, based on past knowledge of patterns. I see
it at the locus of experience, creating the expected (usually) and the
expector. Expectation being realized is the quality event that creates
subject and object. Realizing the expectation is quality, something doing
what it should is quality. (Expectations may be changed in pre-consciouness
by DQ to be of the reality that DQ ends up creating, if we hadn't been
expecting something that had to happen to satisfy other stronger
expectations.)
Johnny
>From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Undeniable Facts
>Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:58:56 -0600
>
>Matt and Johnny,
> > Johnny said:
> > Are you saying, and/or does Matt agree, that there is no DQ, or just
> > disavowing that any of us can see it in it's primary context? Can we
>come
> > close to seeing it in a pure sense, or is any context as perverted from
> > objectivity seeing DQ as any other?
> >
> > Matt:
> > I'd like to say first that I like your formulation in the second
> > post. These two questions I see as confused for a pragmatist to say, so
>I
> > wouldn't say them. I would say that there is DQ. I have no qualms
>about
> > that. However, I would not say that none of us can see it in it's
>primary
> > context because I think that implies that there is a primary context,
> > committing yourself to what Derrida calls "logocentrism." So, I would
>say
> > that we can't see DQ in its primary context because there is no primary
> > context. Saying that we can't see DQ in its primary context raises the
> > question of mediated experience, a question pragmatists bypass.
>
>What would you say to saying that DQ *is* the primary context, and that is
>why it cannot be "seen"? (This leaves Quality as being beyond the
>context/in-context distinction.)
>
>- Scott
>
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
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 Apr 16 2003 - 01:28:16 BST