Thanks Arlo, for your thoughtful reply. We disagree, but I feel we are making progress. Or we were, anyway, till I caught the flu and have been bedridden for the last couple days...
[John] > You are missing my meaning entirely. No normal person after a dip in acid > would say, "that was a quality experience!" > > [Arlo] > You are simply trying to substitute "quality" for "high-quality", and I > think > within a MOQ model this is a mistake. If Quality = Experience, then > certainly > not all experience is "good". > > John: However, I can imagine a normal person saying of his acid-bath, "that was quite an experience!" This issue dates way, way back to a problem I had with the conflation of two different connotations of the word Quality. Is it a line? Or a vector? According to you, and dmb way back then, and according to you now - the whole MoQ, it's a line. According to me and Platt, it's a vector. Quality is a direction, rather than merely differentiation. So we're back to a very old impasse. I argue that according to your view, Pirsig's passage about the anti-entropic aspect of Quality (chemistry professors "on the rocks") point to a directional, anti-entropic aspect. This is more than a line, it's a vector direction. > [John] > Because in normal usage, when we say something is a "quality experience" we > mean its a good experience. > > [Arlo] > Well sure, from outside a MOQ perspective this is what is "normal usage". > > By the way, the "opposite" of Quality is not "bad" (as your usage would > imply) > it is something akin to "non-existence" (from within a MOQ). > John: I also strenuously argue against any sort of specialized language. What next? A secret handshake? I thought the purpose of the evolution of a metaphysical system is to go out and make converts? > > [John] > Likewise, when we usually say anything has value, we mean positive value. > Otherwise it's a completely meaningless statement. > > [Arlo] > Even here if a thing as "value", it can have anywhere across a "0.00001 - > 100" > spectrum (if you will). And this is just a MOQ axiom, for a "thing" to be a > "thing" (persist over time) it is because of "value". Within a "MOQ" it is > impossible for a "thing" to have "no-value" because then, by definition, it > would not exist. > > John: Ok, I can buy that much. For a thing to exist, it must have value. A thing that has negative value, is something that obviates existence. Like Hitler for instance. > > [Arlo] > I can't see how its possible, within a MOQ, for a thing to have "negative > Quality", so this makes no sense. Again, within a MOQ an absence of Quality > (a > "zero" point, if you will) would imply non-existence. > > John: It helps to use the differing levels to understand what I mean. Something on the biologically negative scale would be something that kills, for instance. Not in order to eat, or to dominate, but just for the pure sake of killing. That's a negative quality for biological patterns. > [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? > > [Arlo] > I don't see how I've advanced anything "esoteric", but Pirsig's concept of > Quality is not the same as "anyone else's meaning" so when we discuss the > term > we should articulate these distinctions. > John: Articulate? Does that mean explain in understandable terms? Translating into the lingua franca? Because then I agree completely. But turning terms into a private language that nobody else can get, is what I mean by "esoteric". > > [John] > Therefore, even to rabbitry, it's a good dog who is capable of fulfilling > this > function. > > [Arlo] > A rabbit has no concept of predation and population control (or else they > wouldn't breed like... rabbits). John: Hey you pedantic academic - pay attention to my wording. :-) I said "rabbitry", not rabbits. There are some ideas about "co-evolution" that I'm referencing in my thinking, but I readily concede that rabbits don't like being eaten. But on the other hand, in heavily stressed and over-populated situations, mother rabbits are known to eat their young and I doubt that they'd view that as a "quality experience" either. Better to lose a few laggards to the hounds... > > [John] > A true academical question! Arlo, you rarely disappoint. > > [Arlo] > But you don't answer. How is writing a metaphysics, or not even writing, > say > pondering, any less a real, lived experience than dancing or eating or > painting? > > John: Well... I don't answer when I'm not sure how to answer. But basically, I agree that writing a metaphysics IS a lived, real experience. But it's an experience pertaining to intellect, and is a far different beast than say, cookery or dancing. That is, it's a far different experience to write about cookery, than it is to slice, dice, mix and broil and consume. But hey, you know that. I guess I didn't belabor it because I figured you really did know the answer. > [Arlo previously] > How is the artifact of that experience (a book) any more of an avoidance of > experience than the artifact of painting (a picture)? > > John: Well here we are ventured into a new territory, that fascinates me greatly. For we are then discussing the difference between intellectual analysis and artistic creativity. And I think there is something happening here on a fundamental level. It's why I drone on and on about the 4th level being more than merely "intellectual". The romantic/classic bifurcation of the human brain. The yin/yang dichotomy of human existence. That fascinates me very much indeed. Especially since this dichotomy seems to be a hardwired, hormonally driven difference between the sexes. And it's the transcendance of THAT dichotomy, that drives all art, intellectual striving and human endeavor. imvho. > [John] > Is the Buddha experience? > > [Arlo] > Yes. Isn't this a central point of Pirsig's ideas? > > "The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a > digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top > of > a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean > the > Buddha...which is to demean oneself." (ZMM) > > "To reject that part of the Buddha that attends to the analysis of > motorcycles > is to miss the Buddha entirely." (ZMM) > > [John] > Or is recognition of the Buddha a certain kind of experience? > > [Arlo] > ZMM was written to overcome this view. > > John: I see what you mean. And on a certain level, I do agree. However, there's a certain story about this process.... something about going out on the bull, and coming back on the bull. In the end, there is no real difference and yet the process seems to be significant. If you don't grasp what I'm trying to convey in my flu-raddled prose, I'll try and do better when I'm feeling more clear-headed. > "The first step down from Phædrus' statement that "Quality is the Buddha" > is a > statement that such an assertion, if true, provides a rational basis for a > unification of three areas of human experience which are now disunified. > These > three areas are Religion, Art and Science. If it can be shown that Quality > is > the central term of all three, and that this Quality is not of many kinds > but > of one kind only, then it follows that the three disunified areas have a > basis > for introconversion." (ZMM) > > One of my fave passages, Arlo. Thanks for sharing. Yours in the sniffles, 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/md/archives.html
