At 12:24 PM 2/16/2008, SA wrote:
Greetings SA,
This was a great post. I especially like this part about the
rock. I almost wrote a similar statement yesterday. I'm glad I
didn't. You wrote it much more dynamically.
"To experience as a rock, I can't do, I'm not
a rock. I can define what a rock is, but I can't
define completely what a rock is, and for one, due to
this direct experience a rock is involved with. Yet,
all is quality, therefore I am you, I am a rock, a
rock is me, in the sense that as quality we are
everything,"
Marsha
>Chris,
>
>
>
> > > SA previously: The moq is the intellectual level.
> The moq
> > is the social, biological, and the inorganic level,
> > too. The moq is dynamic quality. Quality is direct
> > > experience. Quality is value is moral. Quality
> > is split into two sides of the same coin
> > understanding called static quality and dynamic
>quality.
> > Quality is intellectual. Quality is social.
>Quality is
> > organic. Quality is inorganic. Quality is dynamic,
>too.
> > > Value and moral and experience are interchangeable
> > > with quality. The moq doesn't grow from anything
> > - it is everything.
>
> Chris:
> > Well this is just plain wrong.
>
>SA: Maybe if you give specifics as to what is "plain
>wrong", it would help.
>
>
>Chris:
> > You cannot put a = between the MOQ and the
> > Dynamic Quality it talks about, we may here think
> > that a MOQ understanding
> > of things is much better, but we also realize that
> > it is A understanding. It
> > is contained within words, within our brains, seen
> > though our eyes: so it's
> > static "Just another finger pointing to the moon".
> > What you describe seems
> > to be the Buddha.
>
>
>SA: Here's a bunch of quotes pertaining to what the
>basic moq is, what quality is, the levels, etc...
>
>
> [Lila; Ch. 11]
> "This division of all biological evolutionary
>patterns into a Dynamic function and a static function
>continues on up through higher levels of evolution."
>
>
>SA continues: This quote above states how each level
>is static and dynamic.
>
> [Lila; Ch. 12]
> "The Metaphysics of Quality says that if moral
>judgments are essentially assertions of value and if
>value is the fundamental ground-stuff of the world,
>then moral judgments are the fundamental ground-stuff
>of the world. It says that even at the most
>fundamental level of the universe, static patterns of
>value and moral judgment are identical."
>
>
>SA continues: Static patterns of value and morals are
>the same ("identical").
>
> [Lila; Ch.13]
> "What is today conventionally called 'morality'
>covers only one of these sets of moral codes, the
>social-biological code. In a subject-object
>metaphysics this single social-biological code is
>considered to be a minor, 'subjective,' physically
>non-existent part of the universe. But in the
>Metaphysics of Quality all these sets of morals, plus
>another Dynamic morality are not only real, they are
>the whole thing."
>
>SA continues: This is why I keep saying SOM is
>narrow-minded or limited in perspective, narrow in the
>sense of quantity. All morals/values/levels with
>dynamic quality "are the whole thing". That's it,
>that's all this world is.
>
>
> [Lila; Ch. 13]
> "Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a
>higher level of evolution than social patterns of
>value."
>
>SA continues: Here's a quote on intellectual
>patterns/level/value being defined morally better than
>social patterns.
>
> [Lila; Ch. 13]
> "Celebrity is to social patterns as sex is to
>biological patterns. Now he was getting it. This
>celebrity is Dynamic Quality within a static social
>level of evolution."
>
>SA continues: Here's another situation in which
>dynamic and static are on the same level.
>
>
> [Lila; Ch. 22]
> "Now, it should be stated at this point that the
>Metaphysics of Quality supports this dominance of
>intellect over society. It says intellect is a higher
>level of evolution than society; therefore, it is a
>more moral level than society. It is better for an
>idea to destroy a society than it is for a society to
>destroy an idea. But having said this, the Metaphysics
>of Quality goes on to say that science, the
>intellectual pattern that has been appointed to take
>over society, has a defect in it. The defect is that
>subject-object science has no provision for morals."
>
>SA continues: Here's another situation in which SOM
>is limited in view as a philosophy. Reality is much
>more than what SOM states what reality is.
>
> [Lila; Ch.
> "Quality doesn't have to be defined. You
>understand it without definition, ahead of definition.
>Quality is a direct experience independent of and
>prior to intellectual abstractions."
>
>SA continues: We all know the aspect of quality that
>isn't defined is dynamic quality. Thus, the "direct
>experience" that is "without definition" is dynamic
>quality. Once we define dq, we are applying patterns
>intellectually to what dq is, thus, defining dq is an
>intellectual spov. From above, it is noted value is
>quality is moral. Now it is stated how direct
>experience is quality, the dynamic aspect of quality.
>Thus, value is quality is moral is experience. As
>noted above, each level/pattern/value is dynamic and
>static. The dynamic aspect of any one level is
>undefinable and is directly experienced by a static
>pattern. To experience as a rock, I can't do, I'm not
>a rock. I can define what a rock is, but I can't
>define completely what a rock is, and for one, due to
>this direct experience a rock is involved with. Yet,
>all is quality, therefore I am you, I am a rock, a
>rock is me, in the sense that as quality we are
>everything, but once defined staticly we can place
>different aspects on distinct levels where rocks and I
>in certain aspects will differ. Yet, dynamically, in
>an undefinable way, everything is quality - "the whole
>thing" (quoted above). We could try to staticly show
>how, and it would work, but also this dynamic aspect
>leaves the moq with an open mind to what reality is,
>which goes on to your next points of discussion.
>
>
> Chris:
> > And what you are saying here below is just. no, the
> > MOQ has said there IS a
> > intellectual level, the MOQ has said there is
> > another way of understanding
> > reality, a way where everything is value. But that
> > doesn't mean that all
> > other ways vanish like *poff* They are still there.
>
>SA: Sure they are still here, but the moq does "poff"
>them away. That's what a metaphysics declares. A
>metaphysics declares what reality is. The moq is
>declaring what reality is. The moq is open, due to
>dynamic quality, to change. Yet, once a metaphysics
>is used, then reality is understood only as what the
>metaphysics in use declares reality to be. The moq
>states SOM is limited in scope. SOM is limited in
>what information and limited in what reality is for
>the moq states reality is also grounded in values and
>morals. SOM, as a metaphysics, excludes values and a
>whole other range of reality that the moq states
>exists. I gave examples above on this issue.
>
>
>Chris:
> > The SOM is still - we
> > may not believe it, but most people do.
>
>SA: What "most people"? People that incorporate an
>SOM reality into their daily lives is missing out on
>morals, values, quality, and a direct experience
>understanding of what life/reality is. Do people
>really exclude values and morals in their daily lives?
> I tend to think not, unless they are feral or
>criminal or s/o-scientifically based, but even the moq
>is able to explain these patterns into a moral
>reality, low in moral level and shows what's missing
>in their interpretation of reality, but the moq
>explains these aspects very well I think.
>
>Chris:
> > I feel it is important that we all
> > realize how the rest of the world looks at things -
> > how all of the levels
> > fit in - before we start proclaiming that everything
> > is Quality;
>
>SA: Pirsig states everything is quality, "the whole
>thing". Quality is monistic. ZMM discusses the 'One'
>is quality. Sure many different philosophy exist, but
>the moq states what reality is unto its' own way. It
>leaves itself open to an ever defining way of what
>this reality is and that's the intellect defining and
>undefinable dq. Thus, the quality-intellect
>(intellectual level, intellectual patterns,
>intellectual static pattern of value, etc...) will
>define reality, but a reality that can't be fully
>defined leaving the door open to many interpretations
>of what reality is, yet, the moq does set certain
>guidelines on what reality is - moral, value, etc...
>SOM doesn't do this, and this is pointed out endlessly
>in Lila and ZMM. SOM is a very narrow view of what
>reality is. The moq surpasses SOM with a much wider
>incorporation of what reality is, at least these
>quotes and explanations above state this to me and I
>find agreement with this. Notice dmb's post about
>Dewey and James (the pragmatists) that also point out
>the fallacies of SOM. SOM is very limited in
>explaining what is happening in reality.
> If you could point out specifics to what I said
>above, and maybe show some quotes of ZMM or Lila that
>support your position it might help me understand
>where your coming from. Here's why I think the way I
>do in a nutshell, from what these quotes I pasted
>above from Pirsig's books that this forum is here to
>discuss.
>
>Thanks.
>
>bright blue,
>SA
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
>http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
