> Ron said: > Perhaps what you are not taking into consideration is your own > understanding. MP: My own understanding of what?
> Ron said: > If you want to focus on the semantic of the word, yes, any word > therefore is an affimation. > But quality, is a word we use for?experience nothing more. > Experience before > we have thoughts or concepts. Not an entity or a force for they are > ways of conceptualizing. When we say that quality is indefinable we > mean that our definitions and understandings are limited to linguistic > and artistic expression of our own unique individual perspective which may > only > be shared by the affirmation you speak of. MP: I'm not debating the word, or even the use of the word. I'm saying quality as 99.99% of the human population experiences it is not Quality as the MoQ holds it. Quality is not mere experience in the MoQ. Pirsig calls an object, let's say a rock to be a "static inorganic pattern of quality." Either rocks experience being a rock, or quality is not just experience. Either way, who of you is prepared to prove that a rock is a rock because a dog lays down in the light? I'm noting that when one affirms that what we know as experience also makes rocks rocks, its an affirmation of something more than mere experience. This is not mere linguistic semantics. Linguistic semantics is what Arlo gets himself into when he attempts to render the word faith meaningless by re-defining proof using the word faith thinking this will somehow making affirming quality without proof somehow not an act of faith. > Ron said: > Faith as per your second definition, is unconditional belief. MP: No, I don't agree. Just belief "absent proof." Making it unconditional would be to change the meaning, to add the element of trust into the word. I have been very specific this is not the meaning I used when I made my statement about affirming Quality requiring faith. > Ron said: > This is not how the term > is viewed, in fact this is what is so difficult to get accross to > new comers because > they are accustom to viewing concepts in this manner, > metaphysically. MP: How what term is used? Faith? or Quality? The way I see it there is a confusion among us about both terms. I have been clear about how I am using Faith. Failure to accept that definition as being the one *I* say *I* used when *I* said what I said is mere obstinacy on the part of those who do so. As to Quality, my understanding of it is that while to a static organic pattern of quality such as ourselves Quality may equate roughly to what we might call experience, this same Quality also is what leads to a static inorganic pattern of quality to be what it is, and what's more to not be what another static inorganic pattern of quality is but for the same reason. So while MoQers here can loudly, adamantly and in some cases altogether arrogantly proclaim that one doesn't need faith (even the definition I used) to affirm Quality, they can ONLY proclaim this while they limit Quality to be the experience of static organic patterns of quality. But we all know Pirsig has Quality to be far more than this in the MoQ, don't we? To hold *that* belief, the one about rocks and Quality is an affirmation of something we cannot prove rationally. Affirmation absent proof. > Ron said: > MoQ is best understood as a philosophy of perception not a faith in > a concept. MP: See, here's the problem again. I am not talking about "a" faith "in" anything. Faith as I am using it is "affirmation absent proof." It is an affirmation. It is an action. It is a concious decision to believe something that takes more than reason to understand. It is affirming something is what it is without having "proof" it is what is being affirmed. That's it. The faith you (and from what I see most MoQers here) slip back into using and into presuming I am using when you launch on MoQ defensive operations is not the one I am using. It appears to be the one you all reflexively defend against in your adamant opposition to theism, and that says more about your opinions on theism than anything else. But it is also worth noting here that I am fully aware that the definition of faith, this "affirmation absent proof" relies on the word "proof" and more so that this word "proof" is highly loaded in this context. This is not to be taken lightly, and I'm surprised that none of you have picked up on this yet. Arlo came close but shot himself in the foot instead. The rest just attacked me on the presumption I am trying to equate MoQ with a belief in God, or even theism. "Proof" implies a presumption of a sanctioned or otherwise accepted understanding of reality, namely one based in SOM reason. By saying the affirmation of Quality takes faith I am saying that to affirm Quality one must make an affirmation that rejects "proof", rejects SOM as the basis of understanding. To say affirmation of Quality takes proof, in this light, is to say that the affirmation of Quality is outside SOM. I'm surprised you guys have not picked up on this. I'm finding it interesting the degree to which you all frantically avoid acknowledging this element of faith in MoQ; it is proof positive that MoQ is outside SOM on a fundamental level. The way I see it, such acknowledgment doesn't weaken MoQ, it strengthens it. To attack this notion out of some need to come to defense of MoQ from theism's encroachments is myopicly reactionary (static.) If anything, IMO it is an honest acknowledgment of MoQ's broad metaphysical reach beyond SOM and MOQers would be well served to embrace this aspect rather than pretend it doesn't exist, or worse, bring MoQ down to the level of defending itself using linguistic semantics. MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
