Arlo, when you say: 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". > > You are missing my meaning entirely. No normal person after a dip in acid would say, "that was a quality experience!" Because in normal usage, when we say something is a "quality experience" we mean its a good experience. Just as we mean "good people" when we say "quality people" and a good movie when we say "a quality movie". Likewise, when we usually say anything has value, we mean positive value. Otherwise it's a completely meaningless statement. My car still has some value - that means I can still get some money for it (unlike my upside-down home). See?
Arlo: > 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: Well you may be a nit-picker, but I am too. And I think the normal usage of words is our first consideration when formulating a philosophy. High quality implies an extreme - but if Quality is just a scale of value, then high could be an extreme along the negative, right? Thus to be clear, according to your formulation, I'd have to say "high positive quality". Too kludgy, by far. > [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. > > John: Do we want to develop an esoteric vocabulary with no connection to anyone else's meaning, or do we want to communicate our meaning to as wide an audience as possible? Which actually pertains to another nit I have to pick with the MoQ's use of the term "intellectual" for the 4th level, but that's a different topic. Arlo: > "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: And yet in nature it is for the good of the prey to be thinned and kept within bounds by predation. Therefore, even to rabbitry, it's a good dog who is capable of fulfilling this function. > [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? > > John: A true academical question! Arlo, you rarely disappoint. Arlo: How is the artifact of that experience (a book) any more of an avoidance of > experience than the artifact of painting (a picture)? > > John: How do I tell thee? Let me count the ways... Arlo: > 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)... John: Let me put it to you this way - given that Reality is Quality, does that mean the Buddha is Reality too? Or another way, Is the Buddha experience? Or is recognition of the Buddha a certain kind of experience? 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
