Hi J-A, Congratulations on your reading list. I hope it inspires people to think about these things. I have some remarks on your remarks below.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected] > wrote: > 25 nov 2012 kl. 01:24 wrote 118 <[email protected]>: > > > Hi Marsha, > > All I have is my opinion. Rhetoric is not about being correct, it is > about being persuasive. When Quality is put at the forefront, correctness > is not the point. Rhetoric brings about awareness, not truth. > > > > Did you find Pirsig persuasive in his depiction of Quality? If so, why? > What could he have expressed differently? Did he give you a good > awareness of his Quality? It seems like there are many who do not have a > clue, and don't even want to discuss the central subject matter of his > books. What is a discussion of a metaphysics of Quality without the > Quality part? > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Mark > > > > Shure Mark, what is a map without the landscape? What is a portrait > without knowing the model? Is it possible to have a discussion without a > discussion matter? The matter of MD is MOQ, which is RMP's view on Quality. > It is quite clear by MOQ that Quality 'per se' is impossible to discuss, > we can only discuss the picture of the landscape by using words for parts > of what we see, not the landscape itself, because the closer we try to > describe what we experience, the source of our experience will change into > someting else every tiny second. Schrödinger's cat will be dead/alive. > Static patterns, maps and names will do as long as we call them temporary > static models of the landscape. A map doesn't have to be perfect to be > useful. Mark: Yes I understand what you are saying. We make patterns of things to communicate these things. Sometimes the patterns work for others, sometimes not. The art of rhetoric is to provide meaning, which was very well done in ZAMM, at least for me. It is true that everything 'per se' is impossible to discuss and we create models of such things. Quality is not alone here. So we stick to models in order to impart meaning of an awareness that we each have. Pirsig discusses Quality in both his books. That is what MoQ is, the presentation of Quality as Pirsig sees it. It is an appreciation of existence through a pair of glasses which are slightly different from the traditional Western norm. It references traditional Western models such as a pyramid of levels and a dynamic/static interaction, however it brings to mind a reality which is not confined to an objective view. It allows the viewer to be part of a significant universe and not an impartial observer. This you bring to mind with your Schrodinger's cat model. We cannot objectively observe the universe since we are part of such. > > Some maps are better than others however and I think much of the > discussion here should be about this betterness. Pragmatism is about > usefulness by this. pWhy are some rhetoric better for example? Is it > possible to observe Quality and what is the difference between the direct > observation and the results from the observation? Is it possible to tell > something about a wolf from observing the tracks he leaves in the sand? > Indeed, we should discuss MoQ in terms of its presentation of Quality. Pragmatism is fraught with difficulties here since, again, we cannot separate ourselves from the universe. Our conception of "usefulness" cannot be impartial. If something works pragmatically, we have something to do with that. Since we impart meaning to the universe, we cannot claim that something is objectively useful. For example, if we find the teachings of MoQ useful, it is only because we have made them so. Pragmatism is based on experience, but we create such experience. From each creation of ours we create more experience. Therefore the pragmatic approach is somewhat self-serving. Rhetoric must be compelling. In today's world such rhetoric must be easily apprehended. ZAMM was such rhetoric, and perhaps like MALC it was quickly assimilated into the consciousness of the reader. Lila was less easy for the common reader, and the differences in rhetoric can be seen from the sales of these two books. At the same time, understanding such rhetoric is something that can be learned. This is why we are taught to read certain pieces of literature in grade school. If one takes the time with Lila, one can impart much meaning into it. Some rhetoric is useful because it is direct and not slippery in interpretation. Other rhetoric is good exactly because it can be interpreted conditionally depending on where the reader is at that time. A good discussion would be how good the model which Pirsig presents is in conveying an awareness of reality through the prism of Quality. I think that ZAMM does a good job in this, and people I studied with in the '70s came away with a good idea of what Quality was. Lila gets involved in the metaphysical model, and distances itself from Quality to the point that some who post on this forum forget that MoQ is about Quality. This results in a misdirection from DQ to SQ, which is the problem with Western thought. The objectification of Quality (in Lila) to a model leaves on discussing the model as if Quality does not exist. Therefore discussions of Pirsig's MoQ should also focus on the appropriateness of his model towards elucidating what he means by Quality. This is where many fall short and treat Quality like some apparition which is constantly eluding us. Quality is a paradigm which gives us a slightly different awareness of our existence. This awareness can be applied to a metaphysical interpretation, but it can be applied to many aspects of our lives. Those who read and discussed ZAMM were not interested in metaphysics, and found ZAMM very useful for their day to day interpretations. > > Here is a list of places where MALC is read this week, but does it have > quality? > One thing I have been trying to convey, is that an object cannot HAVE Quality. Quality is an interactive property which lies between objects. An apple cannot HAVE Quality. Quality comes forth dynamically as we compare apples or compare an apple to our previous experience with apples. Quality is not a property of something, it is that which creates the properties of that something. In order to see if your book brings about Quality, you would have to talk to each reader. Sales are a good indicator of reader value, though. Good luck with your book sales! > > Encarnación, Itapua > Jaipur, Rajasthan > Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh > Chacabuco, Buenos Aires > Bangalore, Karnataka > Örebro, Örebro Län > Jodhpur, Rajasthan > New Delhi, Delhi > Indore, Madhya Pradesh > Bhubaneswar, Orissa > Gurgaon, Haryana > Arboga, Västmanlands Län > San Jose, California > Navi Mumbai (New Mumbai), Maharashtra > Murshidabad, West Bengal > Emeryville, California > Olavarría, Buenos Aires > Vellore, Tamil Nadu > Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan > Bogotá, Cundinamarca > > Jan Anders > There are five places on your list that I have not been yet. I was born in Buenos Aires, one sister was born in Bogotá, my brother was born in California, and my other sister was born in Den Haag (got any Dutch readers?) Thanks for the bucket list. Cheers, 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
