Hi Mark --
[Previously]:
Perhaps the first step is to ask individuals to consider
if there is a question to be asked regards to quality.
That is how Pirsig got there. He used the notion of
quality to achieve his personal world view. Through
this he then grew that into a systematic representation
of quality.
1. Underlying everything is their quality.
[Marsha]:
Don't you think the first step would be to get individuals
to consider there is a question to be asked in regards to reality?
[Ham]:
For what it is worth from one of two alleged screed-writers
on this forum, I applaud both of these suggestions. With all due
respect to RMP, we might also consider whether "quality" is
really the best term for our awareness of this reality.
[Mark];
Perhaps it is not the best way. But this is MoQ so I'm going to
stick with it for now, see where we get.
1. The underlying essence of everything is Quality
2. Quality is composed of a dynamic component and a
static component.
3. The nature of Quality is to coalesce into patterns
and hierarchies,
4. The direction of Quality, on a temporal basis, is
towards higher morality.
5. ....
Have I got this wrong? If so please correct and I will appreciate it.
To "stick with MoQ" is to disallow consideration of alternative premises.
I'm assuming those you've listed represent the author's view, so that,
unless "for now" means you intend to proceed from the official doctrine as a
start, any modification suggested will be regarded as heretical. With that
caveat in mind, here are some suggestions to consider. ...
1. As you know, I prefer the equivalent term "Value" to "Quality" for
reasons I've enumerated previously. Quality to me connotes the difference
between a fine cigar and a paper-wrapped imitation. Value is a measure of
my esthetic, emotional, moral or intellectual appreciation. With that
substitution, I think we can agree that Value is the ground (or essence) of
experiential reality.
2. Along with "'levels", which even Bo and Krimel have suggested we don't
need, the dynamic/static construct is misconceived, confusing, and
unnecessary for a value-based philosophy. While many will not agree, I
suggest instead that we consider Value (in the relational sense) as the
experiential reduction or differentiation of the uncreated Source, however
that Source is defined.
3. I'm sorry, but aggregation, coalescence, and pattern formation are not
"components" of Value. This epistemology is just plain wrong. The
patterning (i.e., objectification, reification) of Value is what Experience
and Intellect does. Forming concrete images from sensible values is a
cognitive function of the individual, not a "process" performed by Value.
4. Since we can't know what is moral or immoral except as a social
principle, there is no empirical or logical justification for positing Value
as an "evolutionary progression". This is simply anthropomorphizing Quality
(Value). If anything moves toward "betterness" it is man himself or the
community of mankind. I realize that this
contradicts Pirsig's thesis, but offer it anyway as another point for
consideration. (Incidentally, I too like Andre's "driving force" analogy
and frequently use it to explain how Value drives mankind in the course of
history.)
You're off to a good start, Mark. I only hope my radical suggestions don't
upset the applecart prematurely. Perhaps others will show us how some of my
points can be incorporated with less "damage" to Pirsig's premises.
Good luck with this project,
Ham
On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:28 AM, markhsmit wrote:
Hi,
It appears to me that many in this post have an awareness
of Quality. The MoQ serves to transfer our personal awareness
through words and logic and references to another. Once such
an awareness is captured, then it becomes subjective. It does
not then rely on the objective transfer, but becomes internalized
as a new view. At that point it becomes separate from the discussion
which preceded it. Many of us are trying to impart (or infect) that
personal
awareness, each in our own way. The result is, hopefully, a consensus
on the best way to impart it to others. It is not so much whether one
view is right or wrong, but whether one method is more effective
than another.
I can sense the frustration by some when others do not get their
awareness, when the relator uses the method by which they
achieved it ("how can you not get it?!"). It is difficult when one
tries to impart a non-intellectual realization with words. Some
philosophies tend to be easier to assimilate. This may be a
measure of the reality of the metaphysics itself. In some cases
only a small number of like minded individuals share a common
awareness. In other cases a large number get it. If truth is in
numbers, perhaps it is the vector being used not the subject
itself that matters.
If MoQ is to become a pandemic, maybe simpler and less wordy
concepts should be used. I see a big difference
between ZAMM and Lila in terms of such infection. Why is
that? Does Lila get too far away from the truth? If an understanding
of reality using the concept of Quality is indeed the most
efficient method for creating reality awareness, perhaps it
should be simplified. The twelve steps of achieving an
awareness of the world through MoQ.
Do we expect Quality to be the right method of imparting
the awareness of reality?
Mark
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/
