On Friday 18 April 2008 5:47 AM Krimel writes to Arlo and Ian: Arlo and Ian, Don't you think the MoQ sidesteps the containment problem to a certain extent by leaving Quality undefined? I rather thought that was the point. The nature of Quality is such that we might be able to see what it is now but still not be able to say what it will be tomorrow. I do like the emphasis on The Way or Weltanschauung. I have said many times the Pirsig's choice of 'Quality' as the term for Tao is problematic. I would say that a huge problem for the MoQ is and has been that while we 'know' that Quality is undefined we just can't resist defining it. So we are always putting together these little formula where Quality=Reality=Whatever. I do like Arlo's shift towards Quality as a verb. It really goes along with Sneddon's thesis with its comparison of the MoQ to Whitehead's ideas about process. I really don't think it makes sense to say that the MoQ is not an intellectual level pattern any more than it makes sense to say that SOM is THE intellectual level. It seems pretty obvious to me the MoQ is a statement of ideas and thus an intellectual pattern. Likewise SOM is A statement of intellectual patterning not ALL of them. But there must be some subtlety to this that I am missing. Krimel
Hi Krimel, Arlo, Ian and all, How can the undefined be useful? I don¹t know what it is, but I know what I can do with it. My awareness as a container is undefined! Yet as the source of my actions I am held responsible for what my awareness proposes. Actions are not undefined, while the source of the action is undefined. I am the king of my domain? Wellll? As far as level patterns gois evolution complete? Hell, without evolution I can¹t even move by myself. Why not more levels until we can¹t describe any more ways of behaving? There is no Superman among us! Joe On 4/18/08 5:47 AM, "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Arlo and Ian, > > Don't you think the MoQ sidesteps the containment problem to a certain > extent by leaving Quality undefined? I rather thought that was the point. > The nature of Quality is such that we might be able to see what it is now > but still not be able to say what it will be tomorrow. > > I do like the emphasis on The Way or Weltanschauung. I have said many times > the Pirsig's choice of 'Quality' as the term for Tao is problematic. I would > say that a huge problem for the MoQ is and has been that while we 'know' > that Quality is undefined we just can't resist defining it. So we are always > putting together these little formula where Quality=Reality=Whatever. > > I do like Arlo's shift towards Quality as a verb. It really goes along with > Sneddon's thesis with its comparison of the MoQ to Whitehead's ideas about > process. > > I really don't think it makes sense to say that the MoQ is not an > intellectual level pattern any more than it makes sense to say that SOM is > THE intellectual level. It seems pretty obvious to me the MoQ is a statement > of ideas and thus an intellectual pattern. Likewise SOM is A statement of > intellectual patterning not ALL of them. But there must be some subtlety to > this that I am missing. > > Krimel > > -------------------------------------------------- > Hi Ian, > > No, I don't think we disagree. I personally like > strange loops and recursions, my point I suppose > was that we have to accept this circularity and > its limitations (and benefits) when we start to > define something according to itself. > > There are certainly, as Ron points out, > "intellectual patterns" we talk about here that > are descriptions of the MOQ. But a metaphysics > (any metaphysics, I would say) is more of an > orientation, a "Way", the active construction of > the system in the first place. SOM runs into the > same self-referential question, is SOM-itself a > "subject" or an "object"? I'd say "neither", but > a way of framing the world INTO subjects and objects. > > You see the "problem", of course. Any system that > "divides" the cosmos can't be contained within > any of its divisions. By definition, it is above those divisions. > > Pirsig mentions this in ZMM. "Quality is the > continuing stimulus which our environment puts > upon us to create the world in which we live. All > of it. Every last bit of it. ... Now, to take > that which has caused us to create the world, and > include it within the world we have created, is > clearly impossible. That is why Quality cannot be > defined. If we do define it we are defining > something less than Quality itself." (ZMM) > > I'm obviously on a "verb" kick here, and its not > entirely Ulysses S. Grant that is to blame, > although that quote sums up a lot of what I think > in very few words. Pirsig, by the way, also > supports this. "Quality is not a thing. It is an event." (ZMM) > > In Pirsig's talk with John on the existence of > ghosts for Indians, he says, "Those Indians and > medieval men were just as intelligent as we are, > but the context in which they thought was completely different." (ZMM) > > And that captures (I think) what I've said. The > MOQ is "the context in which we think". > > It is a Way. A Weltanschauung (in the untranslated German sense). > > And let me be clear, I don't think this is just > Pirsig's MOQ, but applies to the nature of all > metaphysical inquiries. Pirsig says as much in > LILA. "There already is a metaphysics of Quality. > A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a > metaphysics in which the first division of > Quality - the first slice of undivided experience > - is into subjects and objects." In this sense, > I'd argue, "metaphysics of Quality" is redundant. > There is Quality. And there are Metaphysical > descriptions of that Quality. We more or less > look past this redundancy due to Pirsig's > particular use of the word "Quality", and maybe that's part of the > confusion. > > So we start with an undefinable Quality, that is > an "event" not a "thing", that is approachable > always only through allegory and analogy, our > "way" of dividing Quality becomes the "context in > which we think", our Way of Being (or maybe > Metaphysics with a capital "M", but this is > active not descriptive). And then attempts to > describe this context form the intellectual > patterns we refer to as a metaphysics - which > then kicks off the self-referential recursions > since these are descriptions can never contain that which they describe. > > Make sense? (If so, you may be alone. :-)) > > Arlo > > > 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/ 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/
