Hi Steve, On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve: > I think there is frequently a lot of ambiguity in Pirsig's uses of the > term Quality as either (1) a specific evaluation where something is > deemed to be good (perhaps e.g. Lila has Quality) or as (2) the > evaluative "stuff" that comprises all of reality (i.e. Quality has > Lila). The second usage applies to patterns of value. This is where > you seem to say that they all are good. I agree in the sense that a > pattern of value is the habit of some "thing" to prefer some other > "thing" (where these "things" are also patterns of patterns of > patterns of Quality). But this preference is also a preference to > avoid something or at least to choose one thing over another. This > notion then includes the notion of low quality as in the amoeba moving > away from the acid or hopping off the hot stove. It says "it's better > over there" but the negative side of that valuation is "it's worse > here." Mark: Hmm... Evolution towards good is a simple tautology. It exists because it is good at this particular time. It is good because it has evolved. What is good exists because it has evolved. "Evaluative stuff" is not quite right either. Quality is expression. When we see an ape, we see its qualitative aspects. This quality forms the concept of ape. Quality is interpreted as either good or bad by us humans in a human way. This is of course subjectivism as Ham points to. We cannot create Quality, only interpret it. Since all we can interact with is the Quality of things, Quality is reality in our world. This should not be confused with things having Quality. Nothing can have Quality, only express it. The Quality aspect comes into our minds when we interact with such expression. I read your posts, I do not know you, so I cannot say that you contain the quality of your posts. All I can say is that I find your posts to show high quality. Now this is true for everything from an amoeba to a star or a quark. Each perceives its own quality throughout. If we apply another scalar model to Quality, that is either Value, or Morality, we create a Social directional vector. Such a vector is important since we all want to know if we are doing the "right" thing and where what we are striving for in this life. Such vector application is in terms of the perceived Quality of other. We try to surround ourselves with humans of high quality. Such Quality is simply a function of like-thinking. We also interact preferentially with things that have high Quality if we can, and avoid those things that we think have low Quality. The social interpretation of Quality should not be confused with the personal interpretation of Quality. These are very different things. This is Quality, pure and simple. It relates directly to what Pirsig writes. While the analogies which RMP provides are often obscure, he is writing at several levels deeper (or more fundamental) than we are reading these analogies. Quality is not "evaluative stuff", it is "stuff for evaluation". Evaluation itself is a Quality act. 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
