Hello Mary and Arlo, On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Mary <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello John and Arlo, > > Mary: > It's a matter of context. The MoQ is a paradigm shift. It resolves > the old platypi humanity has struggled with in the SOM paradigm. > Saying that there are no subjects and objects, no 'things', only > patterns of value, morals, and quality is profoundly different at the > most basic level. John: I agree. Mary: > To make the leap, one has to come unhinged from all > previous assumptions one has about the nature of reality and the > nature of 'self'. John: Perhaps, perhaps not. It depends greatly upon where you were before the paradigm shift, does it not? I mean, if you were already very close, then you don't have to unhinge everything, just the stuff that doesn't fit the new view. Mary: > Once you are willing to question the authenticity > of "I" as an independent, judging entity, other things become clear. > John: I think the problems with the definition of staticity, are closely related to the definition of the "I". For in many ways, it is an expectation of things remaining the same, that causes great attachment to all aspects of ego. And since the judgment of what is static in life, is performed by an individual who is observing over time, the very self-identification of the individual can be seen to be tied up in what is static and what is changing. It's where our "I" draws its lines. Fascinating. Mary: I think Pirsig would probably say free-will becomes a non-issue. One > platypus down. > > John: I agree he'd say it, and even did, pretty much, in the passage I was refering to dan, but I think one very valid definition of "issue" is something that somebody makes important. And even if we'uns have got the whole thing figured out slick as snot and in our back pockets, for lots of people it's a real bugaboo and they keep asking the same questions about it over and over. They make it a philosophical issue, and if we have it solved, we oughta be able to explain it all. Doncha think? My problem, is that when I ask for some explanation, I get a lot of abuse and obfuscation and spluttering of various kinds. No real well-thought answers at all. It's sadly disappointing to me, because I believe the MoQ is an excellent metaphysical foundation for thought, and you'd expect a little more quality intellect than I find amongst its fiercest advocates. But I do believe it's important to assert that Quality is co-fundamental with Free Will. You literally cannot have Quality when you literally have no choice. Therefore, Quality is dependent upon Choice and unlike Ham asserts, Choice is also dependant upon the existence of Quality. There must be a criterion for the better alternative, in order for choice to be real. I dunno, Mary. Maybe it is is a platypus. But so what? Aren't all platypi in the end, cute and interesting creatures, worthy of an intellectual cuddle? Arlo: > The MOQ does conceptualize (okay, I won't use the word "define") > Quality differently than how most people you stop on the street and > ask understand the term. But that's GOOD! It is this difference that, > when articulated, has the potential to expand the vision of those > unfamiliar with Pirsig's reconceptualizing of Quality. > > John: I agree Arlo. But all the weight of the endeavor falls upon "when articulated". And when I articulate, I'm trying to be understood, in plain terms of common understanding. "Everybody knows what it is." Right? So what is it that we all experience, and even describe to one another as a "quality experience". By this, we mean a "good" experience. And it seems to me that that's where you and I get hung up. Because you don't wanna go there. > Mary: > The MoQ doesn't say all quality is good for you, John. It says all > that exists is Quality and that is good. John: Excellent Mary! This is a very important point and I'm glad you brought it out. When I was trying to talk about predation and rabbitry, rather than mere dogs and rabbits, I was trying to demonstrate how a thing can be good in an overall sense, while not seeming very good to an individual. Or, like you say it, "All that exists is Quality and that is good." I agree completely. Mary: > If a thing is not of > Quality, it does not exist because Quality or Values or Morals and not > mass or energy is the ground-stuff of the Universe. > John: Is anti-matter part of the universe? I think so and in the same way I think anti-quality an aspect of this Quality/Value/Morals that you call the ground-stuff of the Universe. In the same way of the good "you know what it is" we can use the same criterion for evil. It's hard to define exactly, but you sure as hell know it when you experience it. Mary: > > The problem with Intellectual Level words, of course, is this whole > concept of 'thing'. You must hold in your mind at all times the idea > that there are no 'things', there are only expressions of Quality as > static patterns of value. John: It seems like what you've done here is you've just substituted one thing in your mind for another, and what you need to do, is translate the concept of thing-itude. The process of creating thingness, how we conceptualize. It's not that we don't eschew conceptualization, it's just that we don't get trapped by anybody's, including our own. That's what I'd call, the Quality difference. Mary: > Your body, your ego, your "I", your house > are not 'things', but sets of static patterns of value that can cross > multiple levels. > > John: Yes! Exactly. According to a set of almost self-generative criterion. It is Quality which begets quality. It doesn't really arise from the self, it doesn't arise from the other. It arises from the entanglement between. Mary: > The power of the levels concept is that you can use it to understand > why everything that exists is 'good' - from the perspective of some > set of static pattern of values. > > John: Things we can't perceive, but can nevertheless feel almost like a lesson, a finger in pointing to something beyond experience. Mary: > In the vast reach of the Universe 99.99999...% of it is actually bad > for you. You could not exist unaided on any other planet in even our > own tiny solar system, for example, not to mention the vast reaches of > empty space in between. Does that make the Universe bad or good? Was > this Universe made specifically for you? If so, why is so much of it > hostile? > > John: Thinking that it's all about me, sorta misses the point when "me" is an artificial construct anyway. But I figure hey, as long as I'm here, then I can argue with a certain logic that I am meant to be, and other than that I don't think about it much. I take as a presumption, the universe as a whole being good, or the source of all value, as the most pragmatically useful presumption possible. Everything else smacks of ultimate nihilism to me. But usually, the universe as I experience it is not hostile. Maybe if I lived in space or the north pole or palestine (or japan) I'd feel different. But I live in northern california, and even with all the rain, the universe doesn't feel hostile to me. So maybe that's why I like to look at it as fundamentally good? That's my experience, so... Mary: > Pirsig could have chosen another word instead of Quality. He could > have made up a new term and that would be ok, but I think he was > trying to hammer home the point that what we commonly perceive as > quality (the choice between a high or low quality item at the store, > for instance) is sadly limited and has applicability only in a world > view that says all is subjects and objects. John: I dunno, Mary. I don't know if I can agree at all. The way I view it, he was trying to hammer home exactly the point that what we commonly perceive as quality, is far more significant than we realize. It's not the conceptualization that he was trying to challenge, it's a realization of what that common conceptualization means. And pragmatically speaking, a world where people change their relationship with low and high quality items, is the best of all worlds I can extrapolate. It's a very simple thing really - Peace of mind - another example of something that "you know what it is" and it doesn't take a lot of fancy philosophizin' really. In fact, what takes a lot of energy, is getting people to believe in the world of objects! Think how much time, energy and money is invested in this process... That's the really incredible paradigm shift. Mary: > If you think 'things' are > made of matter and 'have' quality, then you must flip this on its head > in a complete paradigm shift before you can get that there are no > 'things', there are only static patterns of Value, Quality, or Morals. > Pirsig says this is the fundamental ground stuff of the Universe. > Further, he chooses to _equate_ Value, Quality, and Morals because in > his metaphysics they are the same thing. The same thing. > John: I like the way you emphasize that "the same thing". That's a very important point. Mary: > > It is not possible to understand the MoQ until you accept his premise > that all is Quality. If you come to it with any other world view as > your premise, you will see platypi everywhere you look. You will be > frustrated. > > No argument there, neither. Thanks Mary, for some great points. 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
