> > [Krimel] > Since you seemed happy I saw no need to upset you. But specifically the > problems I see are these: >
Happy? Of course I'm happy. I'm always happy with a new thought-toy to play with. But I am here, after all, to share my toys and see what y'all think about 'em - how they fit. > > You want to say that the self is a "point." In other words it is a discrete > unit sliding along a continuum. I think the self is a continuum and that > finding its discrete parts is a tricky and possibly futile endeavor. I don't think we're too far apart then. My "self" changes as I grow - but any single point in time, my self exists as a point in the process - I have a specific spot on the continuum from moment to moment. It is momentarily static, but evolving in a continuous matrix of self/other. > > Then you say this point is evolving toward Quality. Quality is in the here > and now. Whatever Quality we are evolving toward is an unknowable future > state of Quality. Furthermore the Quality in the future might really suck. > Quality is a neutral term. It can be good or bad or both. Well I guess David agrees with you on this, but I don't and neither does Pirsig. The continuum is the axis and Quality is the direction. This was the matter I pled for some clarity on earlier this week but I found my old beat up copy of Lila this weekend and got it straight from the Captain's mouth. Quality is the Good. Quality in the MoQ is NOT value free. Such a statement is ludicrous on the face of it. (Maybe that's why I couldn't get it answered) If you are evolving away from Quality on the biological level, it means you're dying (towards non-existence, non-selfness) . Evolving away from Quality on the social level means isolationism and a different form of non-existence and on the intellectual level, choosing to evolve away from Quality just means you're choosing to be stupid I guess. (no judgement implied). Finally, I think choice is a myth. Particularly as applied to choices > influencing the future. A friend of mine is an airline pilot. He tells > horror stories about pilots who chose to enter a highly skilled well paying > and secure profession. Then 20 years into their careers the industry tanks > and salaries are cut in half, pension funds and retirement benefits > evaporated into bankruptcy filings. Those pilots made Quality decisions > early in their careers and through the workings of chance, circumstance and > poor choices of others, they turned to shit. > How does your example support your assertion? Just because somebody made what turned out to be a bad or wrong choice doesn't mean that no choice was made. You are making a common mistake of confusing free will with omnipotence. Your rant below proves my point. > > The future is a crap shoot. "Choice" and "control" are stories we tell > ourselves about how to effect the odds. From a cynical point of view they > are nothing more than rabbit's feet and lucky charms. But without those > myths, we are just mechanically, nihilistically, pointlessly rolling dice. > With them, we roll with "hope" and "confidence" and we feel "Good" about > playing the game. > > Choice doesn't control reality. Choice is the interactive point between reality and the individual in the moment. What happens after that is a little thing I call "the lessons of experience". Or call it pragmatic confirmation. Whichever. -- ------------ The self is a point along a dynamic continuum, evolving toward Quality by Choice. ------------ 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/
