Hi Ant, A continuation of my comments from the previous post. It was sent by accident, without any spell check, and unfinished.
I sit here next to the bed on which my father lies after a stroke. He breaths softly and looks at the ceiling. I am waiting for what happens next. To pass the time I am reading posts on MOQ_discuss. To try to learn something. Unfortunately, your post does not seem to discuss Quality in metaphysical terms, but rather is devoted to something else altogether. It would appear that you believe to have the key to the best description of Quality for our times. I have to say that I find this rather irritating, but benign. Over the history of Man, many have claimed such a thing. These have indeed been honest in their attempts at description. Your position is different, however. You claim to have found the answer in another's writings and are doing your best to consolidate this position in the same manner the Church tried to consolidate the message of four writers and use them for power and fame. Fortunately, you too will fail. I often believe that you consider what Pirsig is attempting to explain, as an academic exercise and you really have no interest, nor any belief in Quality. Again, the Catholic Church comes to mind. Can you not see that everything you posted in your reply has nothing to do with MoQ? With that said, I will attempt to address your comments, bereft of MOQ as they are. >> Mark: >> You will find my posts to be opinions, and any insults are simply in >> response to ones which I have received, for the purposes of waking one >> up. Yes, even Zen uses that technique. The insults in this forum >> that I receive seem to be based on insecurity. >> >> Ant astutely observes: >> I think Zen is a little more than trading insults. Mark Comments on this comment: Yes, just like MoQ is a little more than a set of instructions or examples. The metaphysics of Quality is a metaphysics about Quality. Personally I have no desire to bury Pirsig's Quality in a grave of dogma. For many have found much meaning in what he wrote. They were able to look past the literal and view the dynamic. We are discussing the metaphysics of quality in today's terms, and there is still much to be said about it. If this doesn't fit within the neat little academic box that you have made of Quality, well then I am sorry. For some of us, it is a way of life. We need look no farther than Pirsig, who rebelled against this encapsulation of reality. That one would seek to confine Quality into a rigorous set of words is beyond me. >>> Mark: >>> My point was that this gut reflex some people have to my posts is purely >>> emotional. >>> >> >>>Ant stated: >>> Interesting point here though, Mark. I think you’re actually talking >>> about the Dynamic response that many contributors have here when they first >>> read your posts. They can’t immediately put their finger on why they get >>> this >>> negative response about them but – for anyone who can be really bothered >>> you can carefully go through each paragraph of one of your typical posts >>> and then intellectually work out why they are so “off-the-mark” (so to >>> speak). >> >> Mark commented: >> This dynamic response you speak of is so heavily laden with static >> preconceptions, that the dynamic has completely disappeared. Surely >> you can see that. As such this 'dynamic' response is completely >> without freedom and simple a jump from one static to another. >> >> Ant explained: >> This Dynamic response I was talking about in regard to your posts is the >> same sort of Dynamic response that Pirsig is talking about in his example >> of the hot stove though, of course, there might be an element of negative or >> positive static preconceptions if someone has already read some of your >> previous posts. Mark comments for the group: Sorry, it is not the same thing. Which is why I commented that your dynamic response is laden with SQ. Perhaps you did not understand that comment. Remember that one form of dynamic response comes pre-intellectually, the other is static quality one is responsding to. This is a problem with some in MoQ, where they have difficulty understanding what static quality is. Static Quality is a fabrication of our very being. It is a manner by which meaning is sought. The whole point is to see static quality for what it is, and not respond to it as if "a hot stove". This is one of the problems with current Western reality awareness. Static Quality is elevated to a meaning above all else. Surely you can understand this. So please think twice before conflating a hot stove with a sentence. MoQ teaches us how to avoid this confusion. >> >> >> Mark suggests: >> The point is to free oneself from the static. As you have stated >> yourself, "beginner's mind". Treat each post as something new, >> without all that baggage that one brings with one. Look beyond static >> quality. Look beyond the words in Lila and try to see what the >> intentions of them were. Words are just words, it is what the reader >> does with them that matters. >> >> Ant counters: >> As I've said earlier, the reader is only half the story as regards a >> piece of writing. Otherwise, Hemingway would have never bothered writing (to >> himself - in order to help maintain the quality of his writing) in "A >> Moveable Feast": "All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write >> the truest sentence you know." Mark provides a comment to Ant's counter: This Hemingway example is very misguided. Hemingway had no power over the individual who reads his books. The Quality of Hemingway's writing is a result of people liking his style. The manner with which he writes is inherent to his own creativity and discipline. If you find it to be of high quality, then good for you. I have to assume you are not telling others that they should view it as high quality, for that would be contrary to MoQ. There is no truth to what is better. It is all about Quality. You should know better than to bring Truth into this discussion. "True" should be replaced with "Quality", and then we revert to Pirisg's quote on knowing what is good and bad. Or does "the" MOQ have nothing to do with what Pirsig has written? >> Mark: >> It is interesting to know that you are no longer a "beginer". Have >> you graduated in life to knowing about Quality? Do you know enough >> about it to be able to say that your metaphysics of such is the best >> possible? All I can say, is that this arrogance will only get you >> stuck in some quicksand. Drop this pretence and move on to >> betterness. We are all beginers. We are all investigating what >> Quality has to do with our lives. It never ends! Let go of your >> Ph.D. and move on. >> >> Ant suggests: >> Mark, you are confusing/conflating Zen enlightenment with knowing about >> the MOQ here. They are are different things though I think the latter can >> help with the former. Mark tries to explain what he means (again): Yes, it can help. But I do not believe there is any conflation. The metaphysics of Quality is a metaphysical interpretation of Quality. One cannot know about "the" MoQ without knowing about Quality. To claim such a thing one would also have to say that they have no idea what they are talking about. We are not discussing some set of rules or regulations. We are speaking of a presentation of Quality. That you would consider such a presentation a "done deal" is beyond me. As I said before, you have made MoQ into an academinc exercise. I think about it as much more than that. It is the manner in which I make sense of reality, using Quality as my basis. This is different to your standard Western metaphysical presentations based on a traditional subject-object approach. Nothing in reality changes, just its manner of interpretation. You cannot separate "the" MoQ from Quality any more than you can separate a discussion on music from music. You start with your awareness of Quality then you discuss a metaphysics of such. If one is deaf, he cannot rightly discuss music. >> >> Mark: >> It is Quality that is of import, not the manner in >> which it is presented. Such presentation is degenerate and only leads >> down a deep well. I am just trying to encourage you to move on. I >> constantly come across people such as yourself who are waiting for >> everyone to catch up with them. >> >> Ant strikes out: >> I bet you do! Mark wonders: Thanks for taking this to heart. Are you the splinter group who is cycling to win this race at all costs? Are you at the finish line waiting for the runner-up? Sorry, I did not hear the starting gun. >> >> >> Mark wonders: >> They just keep waiting and wondering why others just do not catch on. >> This is not Arete, this is just arrogance. >> >> Ant counters: >> If I thought that, I wouldn't bother posting here; let alone write a reply >> to you. Mark asks: You call this a reply? You have not replied to a single point I have made. How about a civil discussion here about Quality in metaphysical terms? You seem to be more interested in process than actually discussing MOQ. This must be an English phenomenon with all its bureaucracy. An appropriate reply would be to show how the presentation of Quality in metaphysical terms that you prefer, is better to an alternative. Compare it like Pirsig does. Perhaps you do this in your thesis. >> >> Mark in response to Ant's request to stop posting so much: >> Come on Ant! You do not have to read my posts. Some people get >> something from them, and I have more discussions off-line than on. >> Some with whom I correspond do not even post on the forum but get my >> opinions through a Google search or something. Surely you must get >> the same thing. Is this forum overwhelmed with too many posts? >> >> Ant professes: >> I think, on occasion, this Forum has been overwhelmed with second rate >> posts which seem to be more about the person writing them than the MOQ. >> Fortunately, this is not always the case. Second rate posts, huh? I can only imagine that yours are first rate.. Are you telling me what is good and what is bad? Have you not read ZAMM? What did you not understand (or better yet, what little did you understand)?. Sometimes you sound like a preacher who is showing us the way. Is the MoQ some kind of scriptural writing? Is it like the ten commandments? Are you the arbiter on the manner in which to interpret those commandments? Can you not see your ego bursting here? >> >> >> Mark: >> Have you been in other philosophy forums where each subject has got >> multiple threads going at once? There is no big master who tries to >> control what is said, except maybe to state that insulting another is >> not appropriate. Most of these forums are self patrolling so that any >> insulting is simply shunned by the rest. You would not stand a chance >> in such forums. >> >> Ant punches: >> Sadly, you're thinking about yourself here. Always interesting to hear >> your kid psychology though. Mark ducks: Hmmm... Interesting that you would call this "kid psychology" Does it bring back memories? I have no idea where you are coming from there. You are the one "grading" posts as to whether YOUR criteria and claiming that is the way it MUST be. What is up with that? As I said, there is no big Master in control of MoQ; no, not even you. >> >> >> Mark cautions: >> What I see here is an attempt to "control the message". Like there is >> some MoQ inquisition out there. The problem with this is that such >> control destroys the message. Who is to say what a “positive >> contribution” is? >> >> Remember the quote which starts out ZAMM? You >> really need to take that to heart since that sets the premise for >> Quality. Quality is not some thing that can be described in one >> strict way as you seem to wish. If you seek to “correct” an >> expression of Quality, then good luck putting it into a box. >> >> Ant dictates: Personally, I think some extent "controlling the message" is indeed required so this Forum doesn't become >> full of nonsense and issues not related to the MOQ. The trick is, of >> course, getting the right balance between filtering out the "wheat from >> the chaff" though, as we can see with the example of the brujo in LILA, this >> is usually easier said than done. Mark calls Ant out: Can you not hear yourself here? You do not say anything. What issues are not related to a metaphysics of Quality? How about you make a list rather than throw those statements out there? Please, give us exactly what we are, and are not allowed to talk about. I asked the same thing of Dan, after his plea to please stick to MOQ, but he never responded. If you think what I write is inappropriate then let me know why, don't just say that it is. Keep your "not related to MoQ" to yourself. It is a useless statement to say such a thing without explanation. I cannot read your mind. We are not all devoted followers of Anthony. What kind of filter are you using, by the way? Please explain how you filter. That was your choice of words, I am wondering why you use it (and don't blame Pirsig). Do you know what a filter is? It is made of something. What is yours made of? >> >> >> Mark: >> The metaphysics of Quality does not stand on its own... >> >> Ant jabs at Mark: >> Unlike your writing about the MOQ which evidently does? Mark holds his hands up: Ant, please, will you stop this?! It is infantile. My writings are my opinions, just like your writings are your opinions. It stands alone only in my head, just like you. It is a conceptualization of reality. It has nothing to stand on. >> >> Mark continued: >> >> it requires Quality since that is what it is describing. Try using some >> words and phrases >> and concepts outside of what Pirsig has written, it is far from complete. >> >> Any metaphysical representation must continue to move forward. The >> metaphysics is simply a tool to introduce one to a reality composed of >> Quality. The presentation is trivial at best. Don't get yourself >> stuck in that mess of static quality. You are better than that! Move >> within Quality, and, with that perspective, tell us what you think. >> >> Ant headbutts: >> >> The kid psychology continues! Mark not wavered: Is that the best you got? Pity, it makes you look pretty ignorant. Here I offer you encouragement, but your pride gets in the way and you put your hands over your ears and shout loudly. Ever think you might learn something from someone else? Grow up, Ant! Don't be afraid to succeed. Become a little less British. >> Mark continued: >> >> We all know what Pirsig has said, it is what he doesn't say which is >> more important, for that is the body of his work. >> >> Ant suggests: >> >> This latter sentence is the kind of rhetoric which isn't really >> appreciated. Who is this "We" here? If we all really know what Pirsig >> has said, what's the point of having a Discussion group about his work? >> Moreover, to say that the body of Pirsig's work is what he didn't say is >> just nonsense. No wonder Dan asked you to "piss up someone's else's >> leg"! Mark wondering: Are you serious here? What Pirsig has said is in the records, for Christ sake! It is in black and white. We are the people who have read these words. The discussion is about what he did not say (otherwise what would there be to discuss?). Please remember the indefinability of Quality concept. Most of what Pirsig sees in Quality cannot be put down. All we have are some limited writings of his (compared to other philosophers) of a metaphysics. He gives us tools to discuss with. The way to make a metaphysics grow is to provide tools. One cannot simply point at the tools and say "that is it!" Are you saying that the body of a metaphysics of Quality is simply Pirsig's words? You are the one pissing on Quality. You are the one trying to reduce a metaphysics of such into very simple instructions. Can't you see this?!! Wake up, Ant. The honeymoon is over. You have written you thesis, and now it is time to do something with it. What is your next move in terms of describing Quality using metaphysical terms? Stop living in the past and move on to your next big piece. Get it published. You can idolize Pirsig all day long, but that should just be a hobby. How about a little creative thinking as opposed to trying to control the message. >> >> Mark clarifies: >> >> Again, my posts are not meant to diminish what others say. >> >> Ant swipes: >> >> No one said your posts were - which leads me to the suspicion that some >> of them are indeed "meant to diminish what others say". In fact, if I >> hadn't first got this impression from your posts firstly with Ian Glendinning >> and then consequently with some of the other contributors here, I would have >> spent more time dealing with the philosophical content of your posts. Mark blocks: Are you kidding me Ant? What kind of reverse kid psychology is that? I am still not sure if you can deal with any philosophical content. Prove me wrong. Sorry you feel that my contributions are "beneath you". Still, if you do not have something philosophical to say, then why say anything at all. What is in it for you in controlling the message? >> Mark continued: >> In fact they are meant to expand on such statements through the >> principles of discussion. If you truly believe what you say, then show us. >> I am on >> your side, Quality is important. It's presentation needs to be >> formatted in a more universal manner. It can become mainstream again >> like it was in the 1970s. It is not just some clever twisted >> metaphysical logic, it is much more than that. In fact, it is not the >> metaphysics at all, just like a description of a mountain top is not >> the mountain top. It is what one sees from the mountain top that is >> important. That is what we want to hear from you. Now that you >> understand Quality, what do you see? >> >> Ant daydreams: >> What did Pirsig about mountain tops... something on the lines that the >> only Zen you'll find on a mountain top is the Zen that you take up there >> yourself. To return to the middle of your post about beginners, I can't >> help anyone "understand Quality". All I can help them with - on occasion >> is their understanding of the MOQ. As indeed people with a sincere >> interest on this Discussion group help me. >> Mark cautions: You are creating a false division here. The MoQ is not simply an academic exercise. What do you think MoQ stands for? If MoQ does not describe Quality to you, then what does it describe? I suppose I will have to read your thesis to see what you think MOQ describes. Hopefully it describes Quality. Hopefully it is a metaphysics of Quality. All the best, 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
