Hi Marsha, I do not disagree with you, I just have a different approach. I have no problem with your approach. We just have a different sense of Quality.
Carry on, Mark Sent laboriously from an iPhone, Mark On Jun 24, 2012, at 9:13 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Mark, > > This post seems like philosophical/psychological chum thrown overboard to see > what it will attract. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but > often I cannot find a precise point of disagreement. Is there a specific > point you'd like to discuss? > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Jun 24, 2012, at 11:55 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> I appreciate the labels that you are giving to DQ. I think I understand >> where you are coming from. You present a kind of metaphysical theology. >> There is also another kind of metaphysics, that is one which traces back >> to ultimate principles. I am' dealing with the latter approach. It is >> simply two different approaches. I am sure that your approach brings you >> much fulfillment. >> >> This forum is about the metaphysics of Quality. That is, it is meant to >> provide a description of Quality in metaphysical terms. Certainly >> unknowable can be one such description, but I am curious where you take it >> from there. Is the first principle that it cannot be described? If so, we >> are speaking of a metaphysics of the indescribable, which is more of a >> Christian approach to reality. I have no problem with this. >> >> Any metaphysics of Quality comes from one's personal relationship, through >> Quality, with existence. I fully appreciate that your relationship with >> existence is one of unknowability. This indeed can be one of wonder, and >> be very fulfilling, and I appreciate you candor in providing this to me. >> That IT is there but that we will never know it. Thanks for that. I have >> some more thoughts concerning my approach, which may fall on deaf ears. >> >> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:13 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Mark, >>> >>> On Jun 23, 2012, at 6:55 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Mark: >>>> "And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good- need we ask anyone to >>>> tell us these things?" ZAMM- quote which leads the book. >>>> Until one grasps this quote, one does not grasp what is being told in >>> ZAMM. >>>> DQ is not unknowable, for we all know it. We could say that DQ is >>>> indivisible, but then so is Love. What can the indivisible part tell us? >>>> We can define anything we want, for that is what we do as humans. Any >>>> definition of anything is insufficient, for that is a property of SQ. To >>>> say that DQ is undefinable, suggests that we cannot relate it. But we >>>> relate DQ all the time. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> I do not think Dynamic Quality can be known conceptually (patterned) or >>> perceptually (patterned). Dynamic Quality is unknowable, indivisible and >>> undefinable. >>> >> >> Mark >> Yes, we can label DQ as you do above. This is similar to the gnostic >> approach to God. Indeed, many spiritual teachings work through this >> method. The Hindu Brahman can also be described as you do DQ. However, >> there has been much written about such an entity which allows the >> illumination of what these labels mean. Volumes and volumes of stuff, that >> I am sure you are aware of. Such volumes often deal with metaphors and >> myths, which allow one to get away from a dead end of unknowable, through >> personally relatable stories. Perhaps a story of your interaction with DQ >> would further illuminate what you mean. >> >> When I bring in the quote from the beginning of ZAMM, this is also very >> similar to what you are saying. I provided this to give you a start. >> >>> >>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> Experience is recognizing patterns based on the predisposition of our >>>>> perceptual and mental apparatus. How is it that human beings might have >>>>> access to what is beyond that apparatus? Mental white noise! >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark: >>>> The intellectual experience is only a small part of human existence. The >>>> brain is an organ like the heart. We always have access beyond the >>> brain, >>>> or the heart, or the gut for that matter. To conceive that we are stuck >>> in >>>> experience (of whatever kind) leaves out a lot of human existence. >>>> Experience is created by our bodies, but just think what lies before and >>>> after that experience. There is a whole world there. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> I did not confine the statement to "intellectual experience", nor "the >>> brain". I wrote: Experience is recognizing (valuing) patterns based on >>> the predisposition of our perceptual and mental apparatus. >>> >> >> Mark >> You seem to draw a distinct line at "patterns". This is your first >> principle. We can make the assumption that patterns exist, and use that as >> our starting point. At times it is sometimes useful to look at what these >> patterns come from. One could say that we create these patterns as >> experience. However, you bring in an interesting twist, that being >> "recognizing' patterns. This would assume that such patterns exist outside >> of our experience. This could indeed be DQ that you are speaking of. Is >> this what you mean? >> >>> >>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> Static patterns (perceptual and conceptual) are what we know. >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark: >>>> No, we know much more than that. We know what is before such static >>>> patterns, and what happens when they appear. Life is not existing in >>>> shadows of two dimensional presentation. Try to understand Plato's sun. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Static patterns (perceptual and conceptual) are what we know. Though >>> Dynamic Quality may be experienced, Dynamic Quality is unknowable, >>> indivisible and undefinable. >>> >> >> Mark >> OK. As I understand what you say: Static patterns are what we know. >> Knowing is static patterns. I believe we can go beyond such knowing, for >> this approaches DQ. I do not see the stark line that you are drawing. For >> this would imply that we are stuck in SQ. If this were true, how could we >> follow DQ? >> >>> >>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> Here is where the idea of evolution _seems_ to add value to our >>>>> understanding, or maybe not. We don't know what we don't know! >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark: >>>> Here's the deal: >>>> 1. We know that we know >>>> 2. We know that we don't know >>>> 3. We don't know what we don't know >>>> 4. We don't know what we know (we must never forget this last >>>> configuration). >>>> >>>> There are so many things that we do not know that we know. One does not >>>> simply stop at a definition of static patterns, one travels beyond that >>> to >>>> know more that we know. Words can get one stuck at what seems to be and >>> end >>>> of knowing. But such a thing is just an illusion created by believing >>> the >>>> words. Words are not meant to provide limits to knowledge, they are >>> meant >>>> to continue to extend knowledge, forever. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> If this is your "deal", I am not buying it as a relevant response to my >>> statement. >>> >> >> Mark >> Well, mainly it was to point out that we do not know what we know. One >> such knowing is DQ, which you can claim does not fall within your patterned >> knowing. That was the relevance which I was putting in. It was simply >> a corollary to your "we don't know what we don't know", which was a quote >> from our illustrious secretary of defense under Bush 2, that gave the >> reasoning for invading Iraq. >> >>> >>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> And as RMP has advised "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled >>> by >>>>> static patterns of value it is without choice. But to the extent that >>> one >>>>> follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." >>>> >>>> Mark: >>>> Yes, exactly! >>> >>> Marsha: >>> A quote has its advantages. >>> >>> >>>> One is controlled by static patterns if one follows them. >>>> One such following would be to say that DQ is unknowable, indivisible and >>>> undefinable. One does not need to follow those rules, one can follow DQ. >>>> It is important to not box oneself in with static patterns. That is what >>>> Pirsig is saying. The more rigorous MoQ becomes, the less it becomes >>> about >>>> Quality. It becomes the Metaphysics of MoQ (MoMoQ). Then one can take >>> it >>>> a step farther and it becomes the MoMoMoQ. This goes on forever like a >>>> snake eating its own tail. This is what happens when one follows static >>>> patterns. One is not free. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> One might say that saying anything at all is static, and here you are >>> having so much to say too. >>> >> >> Mark >> The point was to try to prevent one from being stuck in the static, since >> this is simply an illusion. By claiming that this is all we can know we >> create a box in which we find ourselves. The point of enlightenment is to >> open that box. >> >>> >>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> Can you attentively detach, for even a few minutes, from the flow of >>>>> patterns? Maybe slightly dizzy from that merry-go-round is the better >>>>> place to be? Maybe being slightly dizzy enabled Einstein to visualize >>>>> something that freed him from the past? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Mark: >>>> If one detaches from this flow of patterns, one is no longer the flow of >>>> patterns. The flow of patterns are something that is happening to one; >>>> just like one is not part of the roller coaster that one is experiencing, >>>> but can say "I am on a roller coaster, I am on it". As you correctly >>> say, >>>> there is something which can detach. This is known as the Self. The >>> Self >>>> is not some logical construct that can be encountered through thinking >>>> about it. The self is what experiences the thinking. It is the page on >>>> which the words of your life are written. One can search forever in the >>>> words and never see the page. It is not part of the words. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> You misrepresented my statement, which was a question (about detaching). - >>> The "self", as an inherently existing, autonomous individual, is an >>> illusion. Upon investigation I consistently find only a flow of bits and >>> pieces of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value patterns. >>> >> >> Mark >> Remember, your statement was "Can YOU attentively detach from the flow of >> patterns", not "YOU are these patterns". I do not think I misrepresented >> your statement. You speak of a detachment, not of a clinging. To claim >> that we are patterns is a form of clinging. >> >> The illusion is your creation by claiming that it must be existing in a >> dialectic materialist sense. If one does not use that approach, then one >> can grasp what is meant. One cannot deconstruct a page on which words are >> written, only the words can be deconstructed. Again, we have your first >> principle that begins with "Patterns Exist". This is a materialist >> approach which claims a truth in such a statement. I am suggesting that >> this patterns approach only leads to more patterns. >> >> Remember the quote which starts ZAMM. >> >>> >>> >>>> Mark: >>>> It is much more than an opinion, it is a way of life. It is the Quality >>>> Way. It is what Pirsig writes about in ZAMM. >>> >>> RMP's opinion: >>> "The MOQ, like the Buddhists and the Determinists (odd bedfellows) says >>> this “autonomous individual” is an illusion." >>> (RMP, Copleston) >>> >>> >>> Mark >> >>> Yes, but I am not speaking of an autonomous individual, for that is simply >>> using the Patterns first principle that you begin with. One could say that >>> these patterns are an illusion, and not a good starting point. >>> >> >> Cheers, >> Mark >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 > 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
