> > [Arlo] > Hope you are feeling better. > > John: Thanks Arlo. I am.
Arlo: > I can't speak for DMB, but I don't think Quality is a "line", maybe if you > want a geometric analogy is more like a "field". The problem I have with > "direction" is that its entirely anthropomorphic (if not tinged solipstic). John: Well... If "man is the measure" I'd say that's a strong possibility. Think of it this way, Arlo, from our perspective on this planet, the whole universe is rapidly expanding away from us. Now is that some weird sort of cosmic coincidence, or a value-orientation of necessity? Arlo: > I remember a Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin deduced that he was the > pinnacle of evolution by realizing that everything that has ever happened in > history happened for the sole purpose of producing him. Since he exists, the > "logic" goes, it must be that everything happened with the goal of producing > his existence. > > John: Exactly! You got my point. > > [Arlo] > I don't know where you're getting this stuff, but no one is saying any such > thing. However, you can't say (1) Pirsig redefines the term "Quality" but > (2) we are going to keep using it the same way we've always been using it. > > John: Well first of all, doesn't Pirsig expressly reject defining Quality? For this very reason, I'd posit. Second, where "I'm getting this stuff" is our dialogue. I keep describing the common sense of terms and usage that we both understand and you keep evading the thrust of my meaning by saying in effect "but the MoQ defines these things differently". I just don't think that's a fruitful direction for dialogue. Maybe it's ok for you and me, but for what I'd hope is our larger purpose - the dissemination of a new metaphysical perspective - we'd avoid that kind of loopholish esoteric-ness. Arlo: > Language evolves, terms grow and expand (or wither and die), and this is no > different. "Quality" as a central concept in a MOQ is different from > "quality" as its used in its "conventional", read S/O, sense. The whole > thesis of ZMM was to redefine Quality away from its "conventional" use into > a more expansive, more powerful, concept. > > John: Well it's an interesting topic then, this "evolution" as you describe it. If a mutation is counter-intuitive to common understanding, then it's maladaptive and deserving of extinction. > > [Arlo] > You have a few things conflated here. First, there can be no "negative > quality", as no quality implies non-existence. John: Well, all this is just an analogy of course, but I disagree. No quality is non-existence, I'll buy. But why can't you admit the possibility of ant-quality as something which exists but obviates superior patterns? Heck Arlo, even on the non-organic level there's a theory of anti-matter! Arlo: > Second, you are making a moral judgement on the biological level from the > vantage of the social. John: Yes, isn't that what superior levels are for? Making judgements? Arlo: >From within the biological level itself, killing for the sake of killing is > an empty concept. John: I'd say its more than empty, I'd say its negative. It does exist in nature, I believe, but is very, very rare as being an example of evolutionarily maladaptive. Arlo: > It is human socio-intellectual vantage that passes the judgment that if WE > can see no understandable context for the killing, then it must be > "negative". I think this is entirely the kind of thinking a MOQ argues > against. Certainly, the pattern being "killed" would appraise the context as > having very low Quality, but "negative quality" makes no sense within a MOQ. > > John: Perhaps we will simply have to beg to differ. I see this differently. I think "negative quality" is a pragmatically useful description of certain anti-patterns I observe in the world. Let's call a spade a spade here, I'm talking about sin. And I do think you make a key point that I do agree with you on, that it seems to be primarily a function of human socio-intellectual patterns. But I don't see this as such a strange idea that I'm addressing in the MoQ, neither. After all, isn't it immoral for a lower pattern to dominate or devour a lower? What is "immoral" but a synonym for "anti-quality"? > [Arlo] > Then I'd suggest you go back to Square One, because this is precisely the > erroneous thinking that ZMM was written to overcome. > > John: Sorry I snipped a bit and re-quoted the above out-of-context... I'm in a bit of a rush and I was hoping to make a point... artfully. And the point is, "going back to square one" always sounds like good advice to me! Metaphysics - The art of going back to square one. John the Calvinist (who loves his Hobbes) 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
