Hi Ham, Thanks for starting this one, I have to admit that I can't keep up with all the responses, so I will simply start with this one, since we seem to operate on a Good level.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:58 PM, 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. [Mark] Like Dan, I am not confused except in figuring out how to explain some things to you. What Pirsig is stating here (and believe me, I know ZMM as well as anybody), is the difference between "knowing", and intellectually knowing. Marsha puts is well somewhere below. There is no flaw in logic. Pirsig is just coming from a different place than you are. We can easily know things without knowing them. In fact that is what we do with 99% of our existence. The intellectual knowing is just a structure of words used for communicating. Nothing more. There is no foundation underneath them, they are completely circular, each word being defined by other words. > > 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. [Mark] First to explain Pirsig a little in the quote above. He is alluding to the Ineffable. Yes, we all "know" what Quality is. But when one uses the thin net of words to catch it, it escapes through the holes. As we have spoken before, the definition of Quality is part of Quality, so how to you enclose it? The point is, if we cannot talk and share about it, how can we agree that it exists? Capice? Grades are based on Quality, but can we describe using words what it is? No. At best we can provide analogies which help in agreement of it. This is not a matter for simple logic, never was, never will be. Sorry if that was what you are expecting. The term Spiritual Rationality can be almost anything, but it is not necessarily The Rational as we approach it in the West at this time. Open your mind and let the breeze in. I do not think the objective "self" is incompatible with MoQ. Quite the contrary, it tries to break it down, something which you refuse to do in your ontology. Somehow for you the self is some kind of separation, and that's it. In MoQ we delve a little bit deeper than that. If you are referring to human conscious sensibility, then I would have to emphatically say that Quality has to exist outside of our sensibility. We do not have the divine power to make these things up. We just represent them in our own "human way". All the atoms in this universe are tending towards betterness, that is the only reason why we are as well. > > 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. [Mark] It is not difficult to understand at all if you enter his world. You seem to be taking the choice of finding fault rather than finding Good. This is of course your choice, but it is a negative one in my opinion. If there is no inherent self, then goodness is realized Co-Dependently. This make perfect sense if you think about it. According to Buddha, Morality is the highest value, and is in essence close to your Essence. Are there degrees of separation in your ontology, or is it all or nothing? The beauty of a melody exists in the presence of a tone deaf person, and you know it! > > 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. [Mark] Again, don't get hung up in the undefined part. Aside from being everything possible and uncreated, how do you define Essence in concrete terms? We give a word to Quality, that does not mean it is the word, far from it, it is almost everything but the word. > > With sincere apologies to all Pirsig loyalists, [Mark] No apologies necessary unless it is to yourself for fighting this so fiercely. I am just fine, and you haven't hit on any nerve that I can feel. Ever try to cut water with a knife? Cheers, Mark > > 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 > 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
