Hello John and Arlo, -----Original Message----- On Behalf Of John Carl Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 5:32 PM
> 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 > 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 now] We seem to be talking right past each other right here. What you say is not what I was at all, but I'm willing to go with it for a moment to see where this is heading. It may be too early to say whether the difference matters. 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? [Mary now] Yes. John: 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. [Mary now] I feel that way too. It's best to stay focused on the question at hand and ignore the other stuff as best you can, I think. John: 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. [Mary now] This is an interesting question. Quality vs free will. What I want to know is what does everyone here mean by 'free will'? At the end of the day, there is no such thing as absolute free will. I don't have free will to choose to win the lottery, for instance, even though I can imagine it and desire to do so. So, what's the difference between limited free will and determinism if all the possible choices are so limited by constraints? Do you get my question here? It's not intended to be facetious. I'm just kind of wondering of the concept of free will isn't a strawman. John: 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? [Mary now] Well, maybe you can adopt one at the animal shelter? 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 now] Come on, John! Quality with a small q is what you get sold in a store, it's what the Victorians had defined down to the monogrammed napkins in their drawing rooms, it has to do with manners, and Victorian morals, breeding, proper upbringing, and all sorts of other pretentious crap. Pirsig rants about this very thing for pages, and it's not just old historical stuff either. People work very hard now to be able to afford a home by a quality builder, in a quality neighborhood, with quality schools, while driving a quality car and wearing designer quality clothes, etc. It's not trivial or silly. It's essential to people's lives - certain kinds of people that is. If you ask these people what quality is, they will tell you, and I am sure it will not be the same thing you or me or Arlo would say. When Pirsig says we all know what Quality is, he is right, but first you have to pull the advertising wool away from most Westerner's eyes before they can have a chance of noticing it. > 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 now] Tricky John! I ain't no physicist, but my Star Trek understanding of anti-matter is that it's just plain ole matter with a reverse polarity. Positive electrons and negative protons, you know, but still recognizable as good ole Newtonian matter at the end of the day. Evil? I have no idea what that is. I think you have to believe in God before you believe in evil. Maybe evil is just stuff you don't like taken to several orders of magnitude? If enough people don't like something like Nazis or Republicans :), they can call it evil. Only the Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. Which brings me around to saying that evil seems to be stuff that's good at a lower level than I am, from my perspective anyway. Sorry, I really can't figure out Nazi's at all, but greed is good at the biological level and even the early social, so you gotta figure greedy Capitalists are just doin what comes natural - to a gorilla on Wall Street. 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 now] Glad you brought it up. Nope. You cannot equate objects with static patterns of value. Wish I could just say something to make that leap clear, but I can't. It took me a long time to absorb the difference. Marsha said something one time, and now I can't even remember what, that caused a tremendous landslide of new understanding to happen. I didn't ask for it. Just happened, but once it did there was no going back. It's like those pen and ink drawings that can be two different things. The first time you look you only see the old woman, but all at once you can see the young girl in the feather hat. After that you can switch back and forth at will, but you can never again look at the picture and not see both. 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 now] Ummm. Not really. I don't get this entanglement between stuff, though I hear it here a lot. That's very SOMish, you know? A vs B. POVs are not objects. POVs don't need a relationship to justify their existence, though there are plenty of relationships happening. 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 now] Maybe 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 now] Nihilism seems to be the bugaboo of the month around here. Every other post has somebody accusing somebody else of being a nihilist. This is so funny! A few months ago, it was SOM. God forbid someone was 'steeped in SOM'. Nothing personal or directed at you, John, but it's just something I've noticed. Is it trendy and fashionable to accuse people of this? Guess I'm a life-long atheist nihilist, then. Nobody ever told me there was a Purpose to Life, and most specifically a BIG Purpose to MY Life. I must have been standing behind the door? Anyway, all these years I've gotten along perfectly fine without a Purpose that was handed to me. I figure life is what you make of it and that's entirely up to me. Again, nothing personal if you should take it that way, but I think people who worry about being a nihilist are egotists. I guess my ego would want to insist I had a Purpose to MY Life, but I make every effort to ignore my ego as often as possible. :) ...and sometimes I might even be a little bit successful. 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 now] You are right, John. We do not agree at all right now. Maybe what I said earlier about seeing things differently in the pen and ink drawings explains where I'm coming from? As I said before, I don't think people necessarily know what it is right at first. They have to stop listening to the culture and start listening to their hearts before they know what Quality is. 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 now] HE HE. This made me laugh out loud the first time I read it. :) Can you define irony? 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 Best, Mary 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
