Ham, you're misquoting here. I didn't say what you attribute to me saying. I belive it was David Harding or perhaps Andre? I'd have to go back and look. I just know it wasn't me.
Thank you, Dan PS There's no rancor on my part. I simply see no value in running over the same old ground. Your post here is a good example. You've taken some RMP quotes completely out of context and applied your own pre-conceived notions to what he's saying. This is what I see Ron doing as well. And I realize you can both say that it is only my interpretation of the MOQ and that your interpretation is just as valid. I think Arlo recently argued that point with me. I disagree. Your intrepretations run contrary to what the MOQ is saying. And as long as they do, they are not high quality interpretations of the MOQ. You are entitled to your opinions. That I don't deny. But those opinions are wrong when it comes to understanding the MOQ. On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > Marsha, Ron, Dan, and All -- > > > "So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, > is an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of > reality > create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so > because it is 'better' and that this definition of 'betterness'- this > beginning > response to Dynamic Quality- is an elementary unit of ethics upon which > all right and wrong can be based." [LILA, p 161] > > [Marsha to Ron]: >> >> I see the world being composed of conventional meaning, >> AND unknowable, undefinable & undividable Goodness. > > [Ron to Marsha]: >> >> Here's the difference Marsha, >> I see the world as being composed of nothing but meaning >> while you see it as having no meaning at all. >> and that is a huge difference in our world outlooks >> so we are going to disagree about stuff like that. > > [Ron to Dan]: >> >> Dynamic Quality is best understood as "betterness" > > [Dan]: >> >> Ron? You are saying that DQ is "an elementary unit of ethics >> upon which all right and wrong can be based"? >> I got from the quote that betterness is not DQ but an initial >> response to DQ. Isn't that different? > > It is obvious to anyone reviewing the recent posts (re: the story of "me" > and Free Will) that Goodness, Quality, and Betterness have led to confusion > and rancor in interpreting the MoQ. The author himself was contradictory > when he introduced Quality in ZMM. "You know what it is, yet you don't know > what it is," he said. > > His logic went downhill from there: > > "Some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But > when you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, > it all goes poof! There's nothing to talk about. But if you can't say what > Quality is, how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even > exists? If no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it > really does exist. What else are the grades based on? Why else would people > pay fortunes for some things and throw others in the trash pile?" > > But what is missing in this analysis, as I think Dan recognizes, is the > observing subject without which there would be no Goodness to experience, no > Quality to grade, and no Betterness to aspire to. For none of these > aesthetic attributes exists outside the realm of conscious sensibility. All > goodness is subjective, that is, relative to the cognizant self who measures > it. To say that the universe is good and going on better means that things > are going well for YOU, not that the universe is "made of" Quality. > > Of course, reducing the individual to "interrelated quality patterns", as > Pirsig does, makes it difficult to understand how we have the capability to > realize goodness in our relational world. Nor does it help matters to > insist that we are "composed of value", which isn't true either. We are > sensible of, drawn to, the value of otherness. > But the beauty of a melody cannot be realized by a tone-deaf person, nor can > the quality of a painting be appreciated by a blind man. > > Unfortunately, by doing away with subjects and objects, Pirsig had no choice > but to posit Quality as an undefined entity unto itself. This not only runs > counter to epistemology, it renders the MoQ incomprehensible to anyone with > a logical mind. > > With sincere apologies to all Pirsig loyalists, > --Ham 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
