Hi Bo, I agree with what you say below. Except that the the MoQ has to be an intellectual pattern by definition, it is metaphysics. I understand SOM in science, just as I do in metaphysics. Science attempts to create an explanation for reality in the same way as MoQ. I also understand what you are saying in terms of separation from, or encompassing the intellect within something else. The way with MoQ tries to do it with all of its scientific levels and recourse to evolution (a scientific concept) does not do Quality justice. Evolution is SOM, it cannot be used to explain Quality, or even point the way.
Quality is much better explained by other philosophies. Buddhism is based on the separation from intellect. It based on the release from SOM, which is why it stresses non-clinging. The brain tends to cling though intellect. Achievement of the understanding of Quality cannot be done through logic as MoQ tries to do. It can certainly establish a path that must be walked, but it is a path full of self made obstacles. Pirsig has said nothing new, but he did put a 20th century spin on it. If you understand Brahman, you understand Quality. The ghost that we are referencing in ZAMM meant to be escape from SOM, at least that was how I understood it many years ago. It is as you say, a system of understanding. It is important to separate mind from brain. I think you are referring to the brain/body. Which is my interpretation of Ham's negation. Which also by the way is why the scientific method would be ideal to study Essence. Mind lives outside of brain, and is directly a continuum of Quality. Thanks for the input Bo, Mark On Dec 1, 2009, at 11:35:35 PM, [email protected] wrote: From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Is Quality Different from (Mother) Nature? Date: December 1, 2009 11:35:35 PM PST To: [email protected] Hi Marksmit. (Ham mentioned, but please attention all participants) One general request (except Ham and Platt who are exemplary here) can't everyone address the one you are talking to by some greeting word, just to distinguish it from quotes from the same person. Mark to Ham: > This is my conception of what Pirsig means by ghosts. Such as the > ghost of gravity. Pirsig speaks about ghosts in ZAMM because at that stage he was mostly in SOM-land. By ghost he means concepts like "gravity" in Newton's Law which has no existence except in our minds, but then mind is SOM's greatest ghost of all. ZAMM must be treated with care. > Bodvar may be trying to say this, but sometimes I have a hard time > seeing his point.......... What is "this" I may be trying to say? Let me see, you had written to Ham > You seem to say that there is objectivity in science that cannot > measure the subjective. "The Ghost of Reason" and the enormous edifice called science built on it was Phaedrus initial "scapegoat", but later in that book it turns into something greater, namely SOM, which he sees as Qualitys first static fall-out. In the "proto-moq" he calls it "intellect"! Now, enter the final MOQ where 3 levels precede the 4th (=SOM) where science is the primary pattern. Then, to say (as you interpret Ham doing) that ".there is objectivity in science that cannot measure the subjective." is nonsense. Physics measures (examines) what's objective, what's subjective it leaves to other scientific branches (psychology). NB, all this from intellect's premises. However, from the greater DQ/SQ premises there aren't any subjective/objective schism, what looks like an unbridgeable gulf (from intellect) is absent. > What is a measure? Is an inch or a pound real? Is a second objective? > I think that you would agree that measurements are simply a > subjective conventions. There is nothing objective about measurement. > What makes it real for us is that we agree on a system. The whole > system is made up. Inch is outmoded - it's centimeters now ;-) Measurements are real within science's premises. The MOQ does not abolish SOM (objectivity) it just puts it into a greater context. > Therefore to measure Essence, only agreed upon > units are necessary. To say that it is not measurable is simply stating > that it cannot be part of a system. Yet in your ontology you make it a > system. You may be unwilling to design a measure as that would relegate > it to the scrutiny of the intellect. How well would the system hold > together under such scrutiny? A system or theory isn't part of itself, the MOQ is no intellectual pattern that so many believe, nor is it dynamic or static. It is the Quality Reality. Ham's "Essence" would have been a perfect substitute for Quality had he arranged it the same way, but he insist on having invented the wheel and gunpowder single-handed. > In terms of the measurement of Quality, we do not measure it directly > because it is everything that is. What we measure is its expression. Whops This was in defence for the MOQ, sorry! Yet you say "..we measure Quality's expressions". Patterns of Quality can only be experienced. The-hard-to-see-the-points-of Bodvar. (to ape John) 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/
