Hi Joe, As far as I can tell, language evolved to the state it is in right now through need in an world we continue to make ever more complicated. Started out with simple grunts, and now we have complex grunts. Nothing has really changed over time, except the complexity of life. As humans, we like to create complex things.
Yes, the qualities of something are the specific attributes of that something. While others could answer this better than I, I would say that these attributes should be entitled to come from somewhere, and that would be Quality. Since we cannot see things "as they really are", we interact through Quality. That is, the interaction of, say, a sunset, with our eyes and brains creates a third entity which is Quality. However, we can switch the cause and effect around, and say that Quality creates the interaction between the sunset and our brains. It is a question of what one wants to consider as the primary "mover". In terms of logic, we can go either way on that example. The purpose of putting Quality first, is to create underlying meaning that is more than interaction. By doing this, we can then explore what this primary mover (Quality) is and how it improves our awareness (makes it better). If it works, then we have a Metaphysics of Quality. So, yes, it is a noun, in the same way that Essence is a noun. Since we cannot just define it by means of other things, since it is the essence of other things, we work around that in typical mystical fashion. That which we cannot directly experience becomes part of pure reason. It seems to me that you use the term "evolution" also as a noun. This could undergo the same questioning you present. Since evolution really isn't a noun per se. All we can see is the results of evolution and we cannot grasp what underlies those results except to say that what comes out is better. The better survives. Why? Because what survives is better. What do you mean by better? Better is defined as that which results from evolution. There, that's my logic... In terms of the logic aspect for creating Quality, logic requires "if/then" formatting. In order to get the "if", we must create something (a concept for example). To explore Quality, we must then create DQ and sq as concepts. Once we establish the useful existence of these we can postulate how they interact. Once we have those three components, then we can go all sorts of places with MoQ. This is just my opinion, and I do not know if it answers your question. When you say "accept", are you talking about faith? If you accept DQ and sq, then you are done and do not have to question them. You can then use this acceptance to further your representation of reality. Some would question why DQ and sq have to exist at all. If content means that you do not need elaboration on all of this, then more power to you. I accept that I am alive. I do not need the Descarte type of justification, since in reality I can never truly "prove" that I am alive. All other people cans see is a human, they have no idea that it is ME who sees through that human shape. No way to prove it, although I can say "this is ME that is talking to you, not just anybody". You will never know what that means since I am just an object to you, another person amongst many. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha and Mark, > > I do not know how you envision evolution, language? Pirsig changes the > status of "Quality" from a adjective, relative existence, in SOM to a noun, > DQ indefinable existence, in MOQ. > > What is the logic supporting this change? It can only be some change in a > reality of existence like evolution not simply definition since DQ/SQ > describes a metaphysics of existence, not simply a correction to SOM's real > and intentional existence in terms of quality. Are there adjectives, nouns > etc. in the MOQ? How does logic change from SOM to MOQ? > > For myself I am content to accept levels in existence, evolution, as a > reality of DQ/SQ metaphysics. > > Joe > > > > > On 12/2/11 11:39 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Mark, > > I know you've said that you are sick of the sutras, but the Heart >> Sutra explains that 'Emptiness is form, form is emptiness'. I understand the >> relationship between DQ/sq to be the same. But this can be, should be, >> experienced not just conceptualized. There seems to be middle degrees >> between >> being a Buddha and being comatose or a newborn baby. It's been said by many >> that it is right there in front of you, something you've always known. And >> you don't need mind-altering drugs. Maybe it helps to find encouragement >> from >> someone we think we can trust, from someone whose explanation seems real >> enough to seem possible. > > But you think on it. And then stop thinking for >> long enough to see. > > > Marsha > > > > 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
