Mark Smith stated July 10th:
> Hi Carl, > > On 7/10/12, Carl Thames <[email protected]> wrote: > > If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it > > make a sound? No, of course not, because "sound" is a description of the > > effect of specific vibrations on specific auditory receptors. For the same > > reason, Quality MUST be differentiated. It must also be conceptual. It has > > to be about perceptions. Even Pirsig recognized Quality as an event. In > > order for it to be an event, it must be perceived. In order for it to be > > perceived, it must be differentiated, and it must capable of being > > perceived, which means it must be conceptual. It is significantly different > > from the "not this - not that" mantra you keep repeating. That is a > > technique used by zen masters to encourage students to break up their > > normal, dualistic thinking. It's a faulty syllogism. If dynamic quality > > was unknowable, as you say, it would be meaningless. It's not. > > This is well put. Sound is an experience we create. It does not > exist on its own. Quality is about perceptions, but, in my opinion, > it is not those perceptions. Those are simply a result. > > Certainly one can make the over riding principle "Patterns", but one > can also make it Quality. In metaphysical terms, Quality refers to a > conception of the nature of being. With the view from Quality, one > can perceive the world in a different way than we are normally brought > up in, in the West. > > Quality becomes differentiated through presentation. Both Lila and > ZAMM deal with this differentiation. As such, a metaphysics of > Quality is a process of differentiation. If we say that Quality is > undifferentiated, all we are saying is that an awareness through > Quality comes before the differentiation. It is this mode of being in > existence that provides the differentiation. One could say that > something like "expectation" is undifferentiated (I was going to use > "love" but that turns people off for some reason). That is, it is > through "expectation" that things become differentiated. It is a > fundmental platform from which to differentiate. > > To apply the term undifferentiated is really not correct in this > context, since I am speaking of a mode of viewing reality. That place > in which we exist as a "self" can also be considered undifferentiated. > When one uses 'undifferentiated" it is meant "as opposed to > differentiated" which makes no sense when speaking of a set of glasses > with which to see. When I look through a pair of glasses to look > around me, I do not call the glasses "undifferentiated". To do so is > not relevant. > > I suggest that we do not perceive Quality, but that we perceive > "through" Quality. This may make the concept of Quality easier to > deal with. It is not a substance, for to be so it must be related to > another substance. Ham gets around this by using the concept of > Nothingness, as the backdrop in which to see something-ness. However > I do not think this is useful in a metaphysics of Quality. > > The use of "event" can also bring about meaning. For example, we > speak of the "event of a concert". This event is not the people or > the music (or the drugs), but is a term for the entirety of the whole > thing. This "event" cannot be pointed at as a substance of > differentiation. We can be part of an event, but such event cannot be > found by analyzing the parts. It is only through "undifferentiation" > that the event can be conceptualized. This can be confusing to a > Western deconstructionist point of view. So while we can differentiate > and point to aspects of Quality, those are not Quality. Once we > introduce the concept of patterns, we have hidden Quality. Analyzing > the parts does not reveal Quality, which makes a metaphysics of such > difficult. But this is no different from many such metaphysics. > Taoism being one. > > Quality is that from which there is no view out. It is a view in, > just like "self". > Ant McWatt comments: That's all sort of Ok in it's usual phoney kind of way especially as it shows (unwittingly) that GOOD rhetoric probably always needs SOME substance to it. You've got to remember that writers such as Hemingway - or Pirsig for that matter - really believed in Artistic truth. Moreover, there's very little, or any, unnecessary ornamentation in their writing. This is analogous to Taoist art where only enough line is given on the page to suggest a tree or a rock (or whatever it may be). Keep in mind if you're writing rhetoric for other reasons (usually egotistical) emulation is unlikely to convince; certainly not to a careful reader anyway! Practice (as long as you can count to four) makes perfect as they say, Ant P.s. In other words, short version, what Marks says on this Discussion Board (as regards the MOQ at least) is, of course, usually a load of bull but one day, he might get round to writing a half decent poem! . 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
