[MD] The Quest for Quality

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:31:12 -0700 

Margaret (and the rest of you)

Been philosophising on my balcony a bit. Good stuff =)
They way I see it, evolution is indeed moving toward Good, or Quality. But we are not equipped to understand the full meaning of Quality, or perhaps not even a fraction. But we are trying. I think that's what it's all about, the movement of the patterns. When a Quality event, or experience occurs, that is in essence seeing a bit more of The Good, Quality. we move towards it, in embedded in it, a part of it and created of it, it is always there.
Science, Art, Philosophy, everything - it's all moving, expanding our understanding of Quality, the Dynamic Quality thet we can never hope to fully understand, but that we are bound to keep trying to understand by the very nature of reality. Every time we gain another piece of knowledge, on any level, that is moving one tiny, tiny step towards pure Quality. Art and science is really the same thing - all that it is, all it's ever been, is an expansion of Quality understanding. Sometimes we can make sense of it, as with science, and place it in systems and perhaps translate it into mathematics, and sometimes - most notably in art - it's just a feeling of something Dynamic: a new aspect of Quality/Reality has been glimpsed.
I am convinced we can never hope to fully understand Quality/Reality, and perhaps that is the nature of static patterns. Thus our limited labelling of "Good" and "Bad" and even the word Quality, and all the other words in the MOQ are far removed from complete understanding - as Pirsig himself points out.
As I myself practice Zen, the thought sometimes arises in my mind that enlightenment must me a full understanding of Quality, the whole of it. But then I realize that thought is futile and useless, and I drop it.
Well, I'll be going to Greece for a week now, with m family, mostly for the sun of course, but I'll bring my course literature with me - I'm taking philosophy courses now - and I must say it's inspiring to think of it all like that way, all these philosophers through the times, all following that unstoppable quest for Quality understanding. 

=) well, late now.

All the best

Chris




Thanks Chris -
I am going to think over your last paragraph. I think I basically agree with it. I have problems with the word "Good" - even defining quality as a state of "Good", because it seems to imply a state that is 'better' - which sounds 
quite right as you describe it above, but not
when I try to apply this reasoning at a much bigger level -

I don't know if I (a human alive in a collaboratively defined time as 2008
AD (all subjective) - am in a state that is "Good" relative
to whatever 'good' state that existed on this planet before humans evolved. 

I have a problem with the idea of 'evolution' evolving toward something
'better' or with greater quality even.

I can say that the states change in ways that entities perceive as better
quality relative to whatever state they were just previously in, but I don't know that if you try to elevate that thinking to encompass bigger patterns - 

are humans a better state than no humans? is bach a better quality than
Hendrix? we've attempted to address some of these questions before in this
discussion group and I just don't know if I can get into applying the idea
that we are evolving socially or intellectually...changing definitely -
but towards 'better' states.

So back to the question 'Can DQ be Bad?'
Since I think Good and Bad are subjective, then I think Static and Dynamic
Quality is neither "Good" nor "Bad", but is also both "Good" and "Bad" both 
at the same time.
Sorry about repeating myself - mostly I'm using this e-mail to flesh out my 
thoughts a little more.

Margaret










------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:13:29 -0400
From: "Margaret Warren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MD] Can DQ be Bad?
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

sorry - I didn't use the correct punctuation here...

in this sentence - I meant to say this:

are humans a better state than no humans? is bach a better quality than
Hendrix? we've attempted to address some of these questions before in this
discussion group and I just don't know if I can get into applying the idea
that we are evolving socially or intellectually...changing definitely - but 
towards 'better' states?




-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:moq_discuss-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Margaret Warren
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 9:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MD] Can DQ be Bad?

>
>
> Margaret!
>
> I liked your post.
>
> This:
> > there is DQ BECAUSE we have SQ...or vice versa.
>
>
> is excactly what I mean.
>
> > i.e. there has to be some static pattern before something dynamic can
> > occur
> > to change it and vice versa.
>
> > we resonate with other entities who share similar perceptions and
learn
> a
> > lot from those entities who have differing perceptions
>
> Yes, I agree I think. And I would add, that the Good that is pure
> Quality/dynamic quality is what keeps the static patterns going, > because 
> everything moves toward what they thing quality is, that is from their
> static and flawed point of view. so when they see another aspect of
Good,
> well, then that's dynamic indeed, but the Good was always there,
> infinitely
> greater in its whole than they can know/understand/perceive.
>
> I think. This way we don't make Plato's mistake.
>
Thanks Chris -
I am going to think over your last paragraph. I think I basically agree
with
it. I have problems with the word "Good" - even defining quality as a
state
of "Good", because it seems to imply a state that is 'better' - which
sounds
quite right as you describe it above, but not
when I try to apply this reasoning at a much bigger level -
I don't know if I (a human alive in a collaboratively defined time as 2008 
AD (all subjective) - am in a state that is "Good" relative
to whatever 'good' state that existed on this planet before humans
evolved.

I have a problem with the idea of 'evolution' evolving toward something
'better' or with greater quality even.

I can say that the states change in ways that entities perceive as better
quality relative to whatever state they were just previously in, but I
don't
know that if you try to elevate that thinking to encompass bigger patterns 
-

are humans a better state than no humans? is bach a better quality than
Hendrix? we've attempted to address some of these questions before in this discussion group and I just don't know if I can get into applying the idea 
that we are evolving socially or intellectually...changing definitely -
but towards 'better' states.

So back to the question 'Can DQ be Bad?'
Since I think Good and Bad are subjective, then I think Static and Dynamic 
Quality is neither  "Good" nor "Bad", but is also both "Good" and "Bad"
both
at the same time.

Sorry about repeating myself - mostly I'm using this e-mail to flesh out
my
thoughts a little more.

Margaret








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/
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date: 9/4/2008
6:57 AM




------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:16:05 -0600
From: "ml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MD] (no subject)
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

All,

Zen and Now.

Richardson has written a book that  walks/rides a
deliberately winding line between homage, biography,
invitation to revisit both Pirsig's thoughts, and the same
type of 'real world' opportunity to look at things through the
lens of quality.  It is (deliberately, I think) light on the MOQ
but clear on pointing the reader to a shared consensus of
Quality.

It is a personal journey and a journalist's second-pair-of-eyes
on the world mythologized in Pirsig's ZMM book.  We get to
see some of the "chorus" members of his book cast in a
second light.  (As those who've played at photography know
a secondary light source can add depth and complexity and
at time clarity to an image.  It can hint and imply more)

His work has a hint of melancholy and a touch of his personal
worries.  Both add the flavor of the struggle of any seeker
after what is "more."  It is smartly written and should serve to
open the door to ZMM for those who are daunted by the work
itself and yet it is a pleasant literary meditation on the familiar
feel of the original journey for readers who've come to give a
place in their heart to ZMM.

There are technical points that may be arguable by folks
who've spent years considering the whole-of-it, but just
as good Jazz can evoke another piece of music in it's own
terms, this book brings a fresh echo to recall the enduring
original.

thanks--mel




----- Original Message -----
From: "MarshaV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] (no subject)




dmb,

Thanks for the notification of this book.


<snip>
Marsha





At 05:17 PM 9/11/2008, you wrote:

>MOQers all:
>
>Mark Richardson's book was just launched. It just arrived in the
>mail today, so I haven't read "ZEN AND NOW: On the Trail of Robert
>Pirsig and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and can't yet say if
>it's any good or not. Still, it's exciting to see any book about
>Pirsig's work. Ian, Henry and this forum are mentioned by name.
>There is a website with a few photos, reviews and such.

(www.zenandnow.org)

>
<snip>
dmb





------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:28:16 -0400
From: MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MD] (no subject)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed



I've already ordered it and looking forward to reading it.  - Marsha


At 10:16 AM 9/12/2008, you wrote:

All,

Zen and Now.

Richardson has written a book that  walks/rides a
deliberately winding line between homage, biography,
invitation to revisit both Pirsig's thoughts, and the same
type of 'real world' opportunity to look at things through the
lens of quality.  It is (deliberately, I think) light on the MOQ
but clear on pointing the reader to a shared consensus of
Quality.

It is a personal journey and a journalist's second-pair-of-eyes
on the world mythologized in Pirsig's ZMM book.  We get to
see some of the "chorus" members of his book cast in a
second light.  (As those who've played at photography know
a secondary light source can add depth and complexity and
at time clarity to an image.  It can hint and imply more)

His work has a hint of melancholy and a touch of his personal
worries.  Both add the flavor of the struggle of any seeker
after what is "more."  It is smartly written and should serve to
open the door to ZMM for those who are daunted by the work
itself and yet it is a pleasant literary meditation on the familiar
feel of the original journey for readers who've come to give a
place in their heart to ZMM.

There are technical points that may be arguable by folks
who've spent years considering the whole-of-it, but just
as good Jazz can evoke another piece of music in it's own
terms, this book brings a fresh echo to recall the enduring
original.

thanks--mel




----- Original Message -----
From: "MarshaV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] (no subject)


>
> dmb,
>
> Thanks for the notification of this book.
>
<snip>
 Marsha
>
>
>
>
> At 05:17 PM 9/11/2008, you wrote:
>
> >MOQers all:
> >
> >Mark Richardson's book was just launched. It just arrived in the
> >mail today, so I haven't read "ZEN AND NOW: On the Trail of Robert
> >Pirsig and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and can't yet say if
> >it's any good or not. Still, it's exciting to see any book about
> >Pirsig's work. Ian, Henry and this forum are mentioned by name.
> >There is a website with a few photos, reviews and such.
(www.zenandnow.org)
> >
> <snip>
>dmb


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
[email protected]
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org


End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 34, Issue 41
*******************************************


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/

Reply via email to