[John]
But I'm thinking then, by using the term "experience of Quality" in
the way that I do... You get that I mean it was subjectively to me, a
good experience - I enjoyed it.
[Arlo]
An "experience of Quality" can also be a low-value experience.
Falling into a vat of acid is an "experience of Quality", just not
the type of Quality one would typically "prefer".
What you should say is maybe "an experience of high Quality". This
avoids the redundant "experience of Quality" and adds the particular
subjective appraisal you are making.
I'm nitpicking again, but I think when we are reconceptualizing
"Quality as experience" we have to rethink how those words change
from their common use in non-MOQ language.
[John]
"That's a good dog" is a statement of layered meaning, in this
conversational context.
[Arlo]
"Good" and "Quality" are common "synonyms", but I don't think this is
how the terms are used within a MOQ where Quality is experience. Good
and bad are value appraisals that are context dependent on the level
of the pattern and the immediate situation the appraisal occurs within.
"That's a good dog" may be "true" to Pirsig and his Indian companion,
but I wonder if the rabbit that dog just killed and ate would make a
similar appraisal? (Yes, I know in LILA there is no mention of the
dog eating a rabbit... lol).
[John]
In some ways, intellectual descriptions of experience are sort of
avoidance of "real, lived experience".
[Arlo]
How is "metaphysic-ing" any less a real, lived experience than
painting or dancing or eating or whatever?
How is the artifact of that experience (a book) any more of an
avoidance of experience than the artifact of painting (a picture)?
I think the Buddha rests just as comfortably in the passages of a
metaphysics as in the gears of a motorcycle (or petals of a flower)...
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
