MP: But that is still not measuring *Quality.* Its measuring the *chances*, the *likelihood*, the *probability* of an experience having or resulting in Quality. Its not measuring the Quality of the results. Its not saying "this is more Quality than another."
[Krimel] Quality is a perception. It is a synthesis or a summation of experience plus an evaluation. Perception is a kind of automatic combination of sense data and memory and it is accompanied by an emotional response: this is good or this is bad. That emotional sense of valance is more primitive than our intellectual evaluation and more advance than a reflexive response to a hot stove. Reflex and emotion are sufficient to insure the survival of a great many life forms on this planet. It is a kind of primitive guesstimate of the odds of survival and a prescription for action to enhance those odds. The evaluation goes something like this: Should I run away from this or chase it? The higher functions of humans enhance this estimation of odd in large measure by giving us longer memories and thus more experience to draws from in making our guesstimates. This longer memory makes us less confined to the moment and better able to classify and categorize what is happening in the present. This ability to measure the present against the past improves our ability to guesstimate the odds regarding what will happen next and what will be the consequences of our actions in the present. Pirsig focuses almost exclusively on the positive side of this, our aspirations for betterness or what we should run towards. But dynamic quality has an equally powerful darkside and we recognize is full well, that which we should run from. This is slightly off the subject but I would say that the central problem of the past century was too much Dynamic Quality. And I would add that the problem is accelerating, becoming ever more worstier. We don't typically measure odds, we guess at them and on the whole we are pretty good at it. Much better in fact that if we relied totally on emotion and reflex. MP: Like I said; "If you can measure something that comes as a result of Quality, you must be measuring something else upon/in/through/by which Quality was manifest through experience." [Krimel] Quality is not a thing it is a description of our perceptions an estimate of the likely effects of present circumstance on our probable future. MP; RMP has Quality undefinable. I think we can agree this is the case, yes? So how do you measure something you can't define? Yet we can measure chance. [Krimel] Quality resists precise definition. That does not mean it cannot be experienced, evaluated, estimated or talked about. This undefined business gets carried a bit far. It can be estimate with more or less precision but that in not just a peculiarity of Quality. That is Life. MP: Ergo, chance <> Quality. [Krimel] Well yeah. It's not equal to this or that. But it often seems to be a lot like some other thing. 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/
