[email protected]> <[email protected]> From: Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10A403) In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> Message-Id: <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 17:10:10 +0200 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Mark and others Making an intellectual model of something is just what Metaphysics is about.= There is no thing like "my MOQ" Mark. The MOQ comes from the book "Lila, an= inquiry into morals" by Robert Pirsig. I wrote a crazy road story based on M= OQ, how an odd couple could might behave with a MOQ perspective in mind. The= result for John, one of the characters in the play, is that he comes to und= erstand how time, money and sex is related to each other. John experiences s= ome sort of "balance" in three dimensions, energy, form and value. The cause= of this balance is the same as Quality, (the undefinable number 43). The ba= lancing act is the forever and permanently infinite and unfinished issue of d= efining Quality, the result of which is Dynamic and Static Quality. The worl= d as we know it so far is a good try to understand Quality so far. Therefore= you can't never find the ultimate definition of Quality because that would b= e the end of time and the end of the world, the end of "The Big Note". Understanding Quality, as you say is your main cause of being here on this f= orum, is the way of finding the "balance of Excellence"; the balance between= energy, form and value. Any unbalance is the cause behind the next moment o= f action. Betterness is always at hand. (But there is no guarantee that it w= ill be better.) 1. If someone reads your contribution and thinks "it's too many words", then= it have an energy-amount unbalancing problem with the rhetoric quality. 2. If someone read it and think "it's impossible to read because it's so man= y words in French", then it is something about the Form of the message, not a= bout the number of words as in example 1. 3. If someone reads the same text as in exmpl 1 and 2 but think "I understan= d this text quite good but this is not something I am going to use when I am= practicing on my motorcycle", then you might have been writing for the wron= g person, someone that sees no Value in your text. If someone read your text and think "This is a good text" then you might jus= t have wrote something smart with a few words that someone finds useful for s= ome reason. If the reader call it useful because it solves some problem in t= he right way it might be called an intellectual truth that saturates his exp= ectations so far. If the text just makes him laugh, it could be considered t= o satisfy his momentary need for pleasure and relax from too much seriousnes= s in the world. Something doesn't have to be perfect, balance is mostly just= about better than worse. If the text makes him sexually aroused then it hit= s the biological need for information, even though it could be a grey lie. There is another discussion here going on right now which is a good example o= f misunderstanding the difference between Energy, Form and Value called "a Z= en Truth". They are mixing up and crosstalking to each other if something ex= ist, (energy), misreading Form to be Value and vice versa. Form can be objec= tively measured but the Value is always different to anybody, because we as s= ubjects are always different (ultimately undefined) from each other and alwa= ys see a different value on something with a form in common. As an example, we have a couple of tomatoes, there are four tomatoes, we can= prove that they objectively exist, we can weigh and count them, (if there a= re no tomatoes we cannot count them or throw them in someone's face; "Tomato= ergo sum" :-)...) We can discuss and agree that they are objectively more round than flat, mos= tly red and not blue. Finally we can take two of them each and eat them or j= ust do what we feel. The taste of your tomatoes to you and the taste of mine= , our experience from these four tomatoes will always be a personal evaluati= on. You see? If you doesn't understand the difference between energy, form and v= alue, you will get trapped in a maze from there is no way out but madness. If we return to the MOQ, which is a four-level perspective on Cosmological e= volution, we can see that a balance in the three dimensions are present at a= ny level and the lowest common denominator is time: At the inorganic level we know pretty well that Every kind of physical exist= ing matter is a result of an energy acting with good timing. Bad timing resu= lts in chaos and radioactive decay until another stabile pattern arises. At the organic level we know all the kind of examples of surviving strategie= s that leads to either succes or extinction for species. At the social level money, love and warfare are some of the most important i= ngredients for success, but saved time is for ever present. At the intellectual level the most timesaving concept and formula is called t= rue and best. "Eternal truths" are regarded as very good patterns with a lon= g-life guarantee, however questioned by Buddhists and other artists... It is hard to intellectually handle all this but we have inside us, since eo= ns of evolution, a sensory system called the emotional system. This emotion s= ystem is serving us with different kind of signals that tells us if it somet= hing about energy, form or value. By understanding intellectually how this r= eally works, it is more easy to understand the signal system that we already= have at hand. Goodness, betterness, quality and stupid behaviour is just not something int= ellectual, is is also something of practical matter. You maybe have to reread MALC again...=20 but if you have it as ebook, you can always search up and bookmark the more i= nteresting parts. Jan Anders 6 okt 2012 kl. 23:23 skrev 118 <[email protected]>: > Hi JA, > This is a good question. I was defining it as Aristotle did, that is, bey= ond physics. Your MoQ seems pure physics to me. I am sure I am wrong. I d= on't place much importance in thermodynamics. You work scientifically with y= our defined variables and form equations. What do you do with those things t= hat are not variables? Such as "existence" for example. How does your MoQ d= escribe personal existence? >=20 > Metaphysics is more than simply providing a model as you have. Don't you t= hink? What about Quality? How does that fit in to your view? >=20 > Cheers, >=20 >=20 > Mark >=20 > On Oct 6, 2012, at 12:17 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected]> w= rote: >=20 >> [email protected]> <1D79B970-4F8C-4CEA-BB51-4905F6= [email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) >>=20 >> High Mark >>=20 >> You seem to be a funny guy. >>=20 >> How do you define Metaphysic? >>=20 >> Jan Anders >>=20 >>=20 >> 5 okt 2012 kl. 23.24 skrev 118: >>=20 >>> Hi JA, >>> Certainly thermodynamics is an accepted scientific method for the presen= tation of "what is". As a physical biochemist I am aware of its shortcoming= s. It is a self contained system that is based on definitions. >>>=20 >>> However, if it helps you to explain a Quality approach to perceiving rea= lity, more power to you. I am working beyond thermodynamics in the area of m= etaphysics. Such interpretation goes beyond the equations you are fond of. >>>=20 >>> Kind regards, >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Mark >>>=20 >>> On Oct 5, 2012, at 2:35 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected]>= wrote: >>>=20 >>>> [email protected]> <ADD4= [email protected]> <CAP2xam6OLqeVDm_f=3DTOY_zTUK8vD= [email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks Mark. >>>>=20 >>>> 4 levels and 3 dimensions of the thermodynamics is enough for me so far= . >>>> I have some funny ideas for a sequel but nothing definite yet. I think y= ou will be surprised anyway. >>>>=20 >>>> One track takes a lot of math and physics to read first. >>>>=20 >>>> Don't forget to post a review on iTunes bookstore. >>>>=20 >>>> May betterness be with you >>>>=20 >>>> Jan Anders >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> 5 okt 2012 kl. 07.35 skrev 118: >>>>=20 >>>>> Hi JA, >>>>> Congratulations! >>>>> Hope you have a sequel in the works. Don't wait 20 years and write on= e >>>>> just out of necessity! Remember, beware of fame. >>>>>=20 >>>>> I have been using MoQ for almost 40 years now and am not even aware of= it. >>>>> That is, until I post on this forum to explain how it works. I hope y= our >>>>> wrench is becoming more handy for you. All it takes is practice, my >>>>> friend. You will get the hang of it and forget you are using it too. >>>>> Leave the instructions behind and let the motorcycle become you. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Mark >>>>>=20 >>>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Jan Anders Andersson >>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Hi Mark >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Today's score: (all these funny names sounds like some weird poetry, n= ot >>>>>> to mention the list of the names of the =E2=80=98likers=E2=80=99) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> =C3=96rebro, =C3=96rebro L=C3=A4n >>>>>> London, England' >>>>>> San Benigno Canavese, Piemonte >>>>>> Rohtak, Haryana >>>>>> Vadodara, Gujarat >>>>>> New Delhi, Delhi >>>>>> Norwich, England >>>>>> Mysore, Karnataka >>>>>> Mandatoriccio, Calabria >>>>>> Kohima, Nagaland >>>>>> Zaragoza, Aragon >>>>>> Conversano, Puglia >>>>>> Waterloo, Ontario >>>>>> Toronto, Ontario >>>>>> Metz, Lorraine >>>>>> Moncton, New Brunswick >>>>>> Saskatoon, Saskatchewan >>>>>> Gropello Cairoli, Lombardia >>>>>> Amravati, Maharashtra >>>>>> Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Seems like East and US is losing ground... >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Keep up the good reading, don't forget to take care of the organic le= vel >>>>>> in between. >>>>>> The world out there is waiting for you using your MOQ wrench. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Jan Anders >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 3 okt 2012 kl. 05.44 skrev 118: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Hi Jan Anders, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Thank you for the input on your book. I must admit I did read your b= ook >>>>>>> rather quickly as I do sometimes to get the overall feel of a book s= uch >>>>>> as >>>>>>> this. I appreciate the time you took to provide more explanation. I= am >>>>>>> providing some MoQ related comments below, so that you can get an id= ea >>>>>>> where I am coming from so far as Quality is concerned. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Jan Anders Andersson < >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Mark >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> I think you should be interested of what "Money and the Art of Losi= ng >>>>>>>> Control" has to do with MOQ as it seems that you want to know more a= bout >>>>>>>> Quality. MALC is generally a story about how to USE (or not use:-) t= he >>>>>>>> knowledge of MOQ and Quality in our daily ordinary life. I don't >>>>>> consider >>>>>>>> MOQ to be just some mind game. It's an intellectual tool to be used= . >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>> I believe this is a place where we may differ in terms of Quality. W= e >>>>>> both >>>>>>> probably agree that MoQ is a metaphysical presentation of what Pirsi= g >>>>>> terms >>>>>>> Quality. He uses this term with good reason since we all know what >>>>>> Quality >>>>>>> is without having to define it. However, it is my impression that >>>>>> Quality >>>>>>> does not fit within the traditional S/O interpretation of reality. = For >>>>>> me, >>>>>>> Quality is a manner of interpreting reality in a manner which does a= way >>>>>>> with subjects and objects. Therefore, when I think of "using" Quali= ty, I >>>>>>> think in terms of interpreting the world as Quality (seeing the worl= d as >>>>>>> objectless). The metaphysics presented in MoQ is one example of how= this >>>>>>> can be done, but the interpretation of existence through a Quality >>>>>> paradigm >>>>>>> can be explained in many ways. While the levels are interesting, th= ey >>>>>> are >>>>>>> not necessary for beginning a journey by Quality. This should be >>>>>> obvious, >>>>>>> since many people knew what Quality was long before Lila was written= . >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> JA: One of the most basic issues of the MOQ is change. Without cha= nge >>>>>>>> there would be no cosmological evolution. Without the possibility o= f a >>>>>>>> change there would be no meaning in motorcycle maintenance, getting= >>>>>> drunk >>>>>>>> and picking up bar ladies. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>> As presented, MoQ could encompass change. It would not be the first= >>>>>>> metaphysics to do so, since an interpretation through science also b= rings >>>>>>> change to the forefront. So I do not think that Change is a big par= t of >>>>>> an >>>>>>> interpretation through Quality. I think the main force of such >>>>>>> interpretation comes from the ability to completely dismiss subjects= and >>>>>>> objects. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> JA: Change deserves time-space. Time is crucial for the experience= of >>>>>>>> Quality because there is a moment before the experience, under and >>>>>> after. >>>>>>>> Every pattern is repeated, from time to time, it is frequently >>>>>> recurring. >>>>>>>> Truth is something that we can presume will occur again with great >>>>>>>> significance. Every time it meets our expectations we will call it t= rue. >>>>>>>> =46rom the smallest Higgs-Boson particle to galaxies in the univers= e we >>>>>> can >>>>>>>> see that it is a Way, Pattern or Method, to gain Energy, with its Fo= rm >>>>>> and >>>>>>>> with its Value. If something doesn't have a certain amount of Energ= y, a >>>>>>>> characteristic Form and an influencing Value, it is not proved to e= xist >>>>>> as >>>>>>>> a real static pattern. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>> I understand why you bring in traditional scientific paradigms, for t= hat >>>>>> is >>>>>>> what we are brought up with. However, such examples can lead direct= ly >>>>>> away >>>>>>> from an appreciation of Quality. For what science does is create ob= jects >>>>>>> as its main mode of interpretation of reality. These objects are ve= ry >>>>>>> misleading and can cloud any understanding of awareness through Qual= ity. >>>>>>> The more objects and examples one brings in from this scientific >>>>>>> discipline, the more one is drawn away from Pirsig's Quality, in my >>>>>> opinion. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> However, I do see what you are trying to do, and i like your example= s. >>>>>> We >>>>>>> make things up like Energy and Patterns, for that is our way >>>>>>> of interpreting existence in traditional Western ways. That is, we c= reate >>>>>>> these things. That we see there is a Way, it is only because we hav= e >>>>>>> created such a Way. Of course this is important, since it is of gre= at >>>>>>> value to make the cosmos personal. The world we create "out there" i= s >>>>>>> actually happening in our heads and is determined by the make up of o= ur >>>>>>> bodies. It is the interaction of that "out there" and our bodies th= at >>>>>>> becomes the reality we are sensing. As such, we cannot rightly sepa= rate >>>>>>> ourselves from that which we see. They are both the same thing. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> JA: The conditions that let matter, patterns arise as Static Value= s >>>>>>>> depending on Dynamic Quality are important to know. One of the most= >>>>>>>> important experiences for any pattern is the time experience. Befor= e, >>>>>> now >>>>>>>> and later. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>> So far as I can tell, patterns do not arrise, we create them. We ar= e >>>>>>> responsible for the patterns by which we interpret the world. Witho= ut >>>>>>> anybody to create these patterns they do not exist. Patterning is o= ne of >>>>>>> the highest achievements of Man. The other one is, of course, humor= . >>>>>>> Matter does not arise, we bring it to life and call it matter. We a= re >>>>>> the >>>>>>> creators of such matter since they become patterns in our heads. Th= is is >>>>>>> what is meant by the Ghost of Reason. Matter as we traditionally us= e the >>>>>>> word is a ghost, it is a fabrication. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> JA: Every event, every episode in the book MALC is an example of t= he >>>>>>>> influence of Quality and the levels affecting our reality patterns.= The >>>>>>>> trip starts and ends at the same place, like a circular movement. I= t has >>>>>>>> its certain top and bottom points. Every emotional sensation is >>>>>>>> representing a value transmitted to the owner of the human pattern,= how >>>>>> to >>>>>>>> read the 42 guiding "lights" from the biological level and make the= best >>>>>>>> choice from that. Biological patterns build their patterns upon the= ir >>>>>>>> experience from inorganic characteristic patterns. When Elsa is a s= leep, >>>>>>>> when John falls asleep, they are leaving the social level and all t= hat >>>>>> is >>>>>>>> left is their biological and inorganic patterns. Social patterns de= pend >>>>>> on >>>>>>>> biological values, some time it is true, sometime the intellectual >>>>>> pattern >>>>>>>> in the mind mirror show a false picture of the social level. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>> OK, cool, I will keep that in mind when I get there (second time aro= und). >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> JA: When the spear passes Johns face he's facing the danger of a >>>>>>>> One-dimensional pattern thrown by a disguised enemy with an untrue >>>>>> Quality >>>>>>>> experience. The dogs represents static power with not much intellec= tual >>>>>>>> understanding. Our modern era dominated by Monetaristic thinking is= very >>>>>>>> dangerus because it is sort of a one-dimensional pattern. The "econ= omic >>>>>>>> man" is so primitive and that is why I suspect Ayn Rand to be a >>>>>> undercover >>>>>>>> agent sent by Josef Stalin to infiltrate western thinking into some= >>>>>> kind of >>>>>>>> photonegative mindmap of the economic machinery planned by the russ= ian >>>>>>>> communists. MALC is my contribution to broaden the perspective and s= how >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> other important dimensions of economics. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Mark: When you speak of "primitive man" it reminds me of a movie I j= ust >>>>>>> saw called The Master. It is meant to be about "Scientology", where= we >>>>>> are >>>>>>> trapped in our primitive brains due to evil forces, of something. A= >>>>>> pretty >>>>>>> good movie. I really have no problem with Scientology although I am= not >>>>>>> a practitioner, it is Scientism that I have a problem with. We have= >>>>>> become >>>>>>> so bewitched by the world of objects and their "measurement" that we= do >>>>>> not >>>>>>> see that they are simply shadows being cast within our brains, and w= e >>>>>>> forget what it is that is casting these shadows. Of course Plato sp= eaks >>>>>> of >>>>>>> this as well. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> The point of MoQ is to get out of the cave of shadows. Forget Scien= ce >>>>>> and >>>>>>> all that it professes. All that stuff is entertaining, but is also >>>>>>> addictive. People actually think that light is a wave or a particle= . Of >>>>>>> course it is neither of these things, such models are >>>>>>> simply descriptions of light. Light has nothing to do with waves or= >>>>>>> particles, those are just patterns we create. If I paint a landscap= e, I >>>>>> do >>>>>>> not then confuse my painting for the actual landscape. In the same w= ay, >>>>>> we >>>>>>> should not confuse light with our description of it. Scientism is a= dead >>>>>>> end. It leads nowhere in terms of metaphysics. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> JA: When John is chased by the ice floes, he's experiences the dan= ger >>>>>>>> of Two-dimensional patterns. When the passing train makes the groun= d to >>>>>>>> vibrate it is a power like exergy in change that creates new patter= ns. >>>>>>>> When the rabbit is crushed by the tyre it changes its Three-dimensi= onal >>>>>>>> pattern into a two-dimensional and it dies. Flat dog, no good. >>>>>>>> When John walks through the dressing room his biological pattern is= >>>>>>>> causing trouble for the female social environment. His biological n= ose >>>>>> is >>>>>>>> misleading him and so on. He is a lousy card player, why doesn't he= care >>>>>>>> more for it? >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Yes, I like the two dimensional patterns for that is what objects ar= e. >>>>>> If >>>>>>> we live in a world of self created objects, we become two dimensiona= l. >>>>>> MoQ >>>>>>> provides one way in which to escape this form of existence. We are >>>>>> allowed >>>>>>> to stand up and actually look around rather than scurry around as >>>>>> shadows. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> JA: Thanks for the inspiration. Maybe you should get more from a r= eread >>>>>>>> with this in mind. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Thanks, I will. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Hope what I present makes sense. I find much more value in a world >>>>>> without >>>>>>> objects. Like I say, Quality is a different way of looking at reali= ty. >>>>>>> Most would call it insane. But that is simply because it has not ca= ught >>>>>>> on, yet... >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I have to say, that I interpret the levels in a very different way t= han >>>>>> you >>>>>>> do, as well. Whatever works, heh? >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> All the best, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Mark >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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 >>>>=20 >>>> 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 >>=20 >> 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
