On Oct 9, 2010, at 2:04 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha said: > Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. What I say about Quality > is not Quality, it is a static representation relative to my history and DQ. > Quality (unpatterned experience/patterned experience). > > > dmb says: > > Sigh. > > There you go again. > > When Pirsig says Quality is indivisible and undefinable he is talking about > Dynamic quality. That's what it means to say that DQ is unpatterned. When > we're talking about static patterns, particularly intellectual static > patterns such as the kind we use in physics and metaphysics, we're talking > about patterns that ARE intellectually knowable, definable and divisible.
Marsha: The comment 'Quality is unknowable, indivisible and undefinable.' was not directed at static patterns of value, but at Quality. > > Just look at the evidence: > > "The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called > 'Quality' in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality > doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead of > definition. Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to > intellectual abstractions. Quality is indivisible, undefinable and > unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics > can be none of these things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and > knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics." (Lila, 64) Marsha: In mediations I have watched bits and pieces of patterns of value flow through my consciousness. And, I have had unpatterned experiences. > > Guess what we're doing here. We are talking about metaphysics, a > philosophical theory of truth and some philosophy of science. Any discursive > process MUST be divisible, definable and knowable or there isn't any > discussion. This does not mean anyone is trying to define or DQ itself. The > cutting edge of experience or the immediate flux of life is prior to > intellectual divisions and definitions and that's WHY it can't be defined. > But, Pirsig says, a metaphysics MUST BE divisible, definable and knowable or > there isn't any metaphysics. By saying that the MOQ's static patterns are > undefinable and unknowable, Marsha puts flux where stability ought to be and > the result is that there isn't any metaphysics in the metaphysics of Quality. > The effect is that even intellectual truths are unknowable and undefinable. > This is even worse than the foolish relativism of Rorty's cooperative > freshmen. It's completely vacuous and that is definitely the wrong kind of > emptiness. Marsha: I have not used the words 'immediate flux.' I had an experience involving Justice yesterday. Today I also had an experience of Justice, and it was different than the experience of Justice yesterday. Also, patterns as the move through consciousness have a beginning, a middle and an end; they are not some absolute 'experience'. We can talk intellectual patterns about the MoQ for ever, and that talk is not Quality. I am coming at the MoQ from a Eastern philosophical view and looking for a quantum connection. And I do not need to insult you to do it. Your insulting comments demonstrate a lack of harmony. Rather than moving Radical Empiricism and American Pragmatism forward using the MoQ, you seem to want to move it backwards to find some small container. Even so, you should be able to present you view without insulting others. And my comment about you reifying your imagination into "fiercest rivals' stands. Your understanding of the MoQ seems page deep. > What could be more intellectually paralyzing? What could be a deader end? > What could be more solipsistic and nihilistic and useless? In terms of bad > ideas and bad interpretations, I really can't imagine how it could get much > worse. Marsha: Insulting comments get you what? ___ 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/md/archives.html
