From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sun Jun 13 2004 - 13:53:17 BST
> Mark 12-6-04: Hello dmb, May i ask you to avoid using coloured text please?
> My computer and screen are so old you would not believe, and blue text does
> not look good for me. Thanks.
>
> [David Buchanan] Blue text? I don't know how to fix that. For reasons that
> are beyond me, that's just what happens when I respond to your posts. It also
> inserts my full name in bracketts. In fact, I was going to ask you to do
> something about it. Apparently, we are both annoyed by it.
Mark 13-6-04: Hello dmb, It's ok. If there is nothing you can do about it i
understand.
It's not annoying, it just means i have to change the colour at this end in
order to see it better.
When i worked with VDU's all week long as a draughtsman, i preferred coloured
text - it's easier on the eyes if you have a good quality machine. My PC is
not good Quality.
>
> Mark said:
> Quality produces aesthetic harmony. Aesthetic harmony is moral.
> This is the oldest idea known to man.
> Coherence is an MOQ derived way of describing Harmonious aesthetic
> relationships between static patterns.
>
> dmb says:
> Coherence describes what? This is exactly what I DON'T understand. Here you
> seem to be expressing your main idea about coherence (I guess?) but it makes
> no sense to me. There are many kinds of Quality. There are many kinds of
> morals. There are many kinds of static patterns. Its just too vague. It is so
> broadly stated that it means nothing.
Mark 13-6-04: OK. Stay calm.
The MOQ begins with a division of DQ and SQ. Is this too vague? Is this so
broad it has no meaning?
Regarding further metaphysical applications of DQ/SQ; will these be vague
also? Will they be so broad as to have no meaning?
Regarding excellence. How may a metaphysics which has for its basic division
DQ and SQ describe excellence? Will such a description be to broad? Vague?
Coherence describes excellence in MOQ terms.
Here is a concrete example:
Question: Describe how a Motorcycle reaches its peak condition using the
Metaphysics of Quality.
Further, it seems that the MOQ describes the reasons for and the purpose of
CONFLICT,
> not harmony. The discrete nature of the levels precludes such harmony. I
> just don't know how to object in any way that is more specific because it all
> looks like a big jumbled and mixed and tnalged and vague and contradictory.
> This is so ironic that its funny. You're making an incoherent and artless
> argument in favor coherence and art.
Mark 13-6-04: I doubt if there are many people in this forum who would
challenge that a metaphysical description of how a motorcycle reaches its peak
condition should be at least possible.
It would be rather fantastic if the author of Zen and the art of Motorcycle
maintenance would go on to develop a metaphysics that could not do this without
being so broad or vague as to have no meaning.
So, do it dmb. Answer the question. Tell us how four evolutionary related
levels of static patterns of Quality end up with a Motorcycle in peak condition.
If the discrete nature of MOQ levels precludes harmony, how does a Motorcycle
reach its peak condition? After all, a Motorcycle is composed of Inorganic
values; It is ridden by Biological patterns; It has a Social pattern and without
Intellectual patterns its technology would not exist.
> [David Buchanan] I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but this just
> won't do. Can't you offer quotes, examples, explanations and maybe a definition
> or two? Again, I'm quite sincere when I say this makes no sense. It may hurt
> your feelings, and it might not be true for everyone, but it is still a
> genuine point.
Mark 13-6-04: It's not possible for you to give me a hard time dmb. I refuse
to enter into it. The idea of Coherence found me. It was a Dynamic moment when
things crystallised.
This idea has to stand on its own without me pumping it up like a flagging
balloon all the time. It either excites people or it doesn't.
>
> Maybe reading your essay would help, but I have not read it because (A) I
> never read an essay on the site that was worth the effort and (B) I can barely
> understand your posts and so have no confidence that your essay would be much
> different and C) I'm up to my eyeballs in unread material that I actuallly
> want to read. (Like McWatt's text book for starters)
Mark 13-6-04: Well, what ever you decide to read, i suggest you leave off the
old Ken Earl Wilbur. I'm not confident it is doing you any good. And that
brings us back to the MF Topic of May 2004 where this began. Rank, order and
hierarchy do not sit well with the oldest idea known to man. They do in KEW's
Universe because the more rank, order and hierarchy there is, the more convoluted
you can become in your publishing. This makes for a very tidy source of income
at the expense of the gullible.
> I[David Buchanan] 've been through this sort of thing with others and have
> lost my patience. I've already asked several times. I will read whatever
> answers you'd care to provide, but I won't ask you again. Either you have a clear
> answer or you don't. I really don't want to go round and round. At the risk
> of being rude, either put up or shut up. Make the case or leave me alone. No
> hard feelings either way.
>
> Thanks,
> dmb
>
>
Mark 13-6-04: Well, allot of work went into the essay. The idea was say it
once so that people would not have to keep on asking for explanations. I hope
you can see why i thought this would make sense?
All the best,
Mark
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 : Sun Jun 13 2004 - 14:32:54 BST