Dear Mark It's just a good experience to go to the opera sometimes. Nice patterns there. Less truth.
I can sometimes have a good laugh at the barber and Don Basilio. J A 27 sep 2012 kl. 23.24 skrev 118: > Hi Jan Anders, > I assume the laugh comes from its being in English. > > I am not quite sure what you mean by "just" below. The patterns we create > can be grand. Are you suggesting that there is more? If so how do you know? > What is Quality to you outside of patterns? > > Cheers, > > > Mark > > On Sep 27, 2012, at 6:44 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Mark >> >> Definitions and words are just patterns. However, THIS is Quality, in very >> High Definition: >> http://www.metoperafamily.org/opera/barber-of-seville-rossini-english-tickets.aspx >> >> Wish you a good quality laugh. >> >> J A >> >> >> 27 sep 2012 kl. 01.10 skrev 118: >> >>> Hi Jan-Anders, >>> >>> Thank you for your input on this subject. I find this whole concept of not >>> describing (or defining as some people say) Quality to be a bit >>> nonsensical. If this were true, we would have a word (Quality) that cannot >>> be said to mean anything, yet Pirsig devotes two books to the subject. When >>> we bring up the word Quality we have a meaning in mind. Yet, there seem to >>> be those in this forum who claim that no meaning can be given to Quality. >>> >>> >>> >>> We use words to exchange ideas. These ideas are of something that is >>> important to us. The words we use to describe Quality are meant to convey >>> meaning to the reader. That is why we post in this forum, to discuss a >>> metaphysics based on Quality. In order to discuss Quality, we must use >>> words of agreed on definitions. In order to discuss Quality we must agree >>> on what it is that we are discussing. >>> >>> >>> >>> In its purest sense of the word, Quality is a manner of viewing existence. >>> It is a paradigm through which one can make meaning of the world. This is >>> explained to great length in Lila. The whole purpose of MOQ is to provide >>> meaning to Quality using metaphysical terms. What this brings, is an >>> awareness of existence which is outside subjects and objects. This must be >>> something we all are aware of; otherwise we would be discussing Quality as >>> if it were some foreign viewpoint. One has little to discuss about skiing, >>> unless one has been skiing. We are discussing what we are aware of through >>> the prism of Quality. This is really simple. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is clear from ZAMM, that to see the world as Quality, one enters into >>> the realm of insanity. Therefore, it could seem that trying to define >>> Quality is an exercise in insanity. However, this is not the case as is >>> shown by MOQ as presented in Lila. Quality is defined so many times in >>> Lila, that the book should be banned according to some. >>> >>> >>> >>> The little response provided by Jan Anders is completely useless in terms >>> of MOQ. It says that one cannot define Quality in the course of a >>> conversation. I have news for Jan Anders, there is absolutely nothing that >>> can be defined. Try defining your dog (if you have one), and I will show >>> you what you have left out. Definitions are merely agreements, words are >>> descriptons. There is nothing binding about definitions except their >>> utility. Quality is no different in it definability than anything else we >>> discuss. The problem seems to be that nobody can agree on Quality. All we >>> do is go around in circles doing our best not to talk about it, and somehow >>> deny Quality in MOQ. This is completely absurd. >>> >>> >>> >>> If I present an analogy between Quality and Intent, what I am doing is >>> saying that in my opinion, my awareness of Quality is similar to my >>> awareness of Intent. Neither of these terms needs to be forcefully defined >>> so long as I make clear what I mean. The whole purpose of such an exercise >>> is to bring meaning to Quality. It is to allow others to see existence in >>> a new way; a way that brings more meaning and makes more sense than we >>> currently have in the West. An awareness that we all have. An awarness >>> that is free from SOM. >>> >>> >>> >>> So, please, let's stop all this "non-defining" nonsense. Let us get back >>> to MOQ and discussing Quality. What words do you want to use to discuss >>> Quality? >>> >>> >>> How about it Jan Anders? Got something of substance to say about Quality? >>> Tell us of your experience of your examination of the World as Quality. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jan Anders Andersson >>> <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Mark >>> >>> If you don't mind I would like to split in here. Defining Quality is as >>> easy as defining a hole without mentioning what's around it, specially when >>> some says that it's all fluid. >>> >>> >>>> >>> 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 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
