Hi Anthony ant said; For a start, I'd say that you can also identify a "When" and a "Who" thus implying the word "identification" has at least a four dimensional character.
In my approach also the "when" and the "who" are condsidered to be a "What". a "what" is to me like what a "meme" is to Richard Dawkins. To the most of us here it would probably equal Static Quality. To me, before it can get the predicate quality, there has to be a sensational component there, a feeling , an emotion. I think that there is a relationship between a "What" and "Me". that causes this emotion. in other words, I think there is a relationship between an Object and a Subject that causes a sensation. This relationship i talk about here i see as the Ïdentification "With" a "What". Like the feeling you get if you identify with the main character in a movie. This feeling determens for some part your quality experience of the main character or of the whole movie. I think that each of us identifies with every piece of information we encounter dependent on who we subconsciously already are, and that all these encounters cause sensations, (feelings, emotions). To me the identification "with" proces is the reason why we can determen value. It's the value sense organ RMP talks about in his essay Subjects, Objects, Data and values To deal with this mathematically i imagine a resonance relationship where engergy is being transferred between subjects and objects Like energy is transferred between a coil and a capacitor in electronics or like energy is transferred between a Mass and a Spring in mechanics. In some cases resonance rise appears, This happens when subjects and objects start to appear identical. This causes high emotional intensities and can in some cases cause mental illness but also Mystical experiences or other extreme cultural phenomenon. I enough for now, I hope this rises some questions which i am happy to answer and if i can not i am probably a nutcase full of shit. I am aware that right use of language plays a big part in a philosophical proces like this, The problem is that new ideas and concepts don't arrive in language that is already fully accepted by the society we have to deal with. But this shouln't have to be a problem, just ask each other what you mean by the use of a certain word in the new context. Kind regards, Eddo 2013/6/6 Ant McWatt <[email protected]> > Eddo, > > Regarding your post earlier today, I was also hoping that you'd have had a > more positive response at MOQ Discuss regarding your "definition of > Quality" but unfortunately it seems your ideas were just too far removed > from Pirsig's ideas (where Quality is kept UNDEFINED) to be of much > interest here. That's an immense metaphysical rift which goes all the way > back to Plato "defining" the Good as some type of Form. The whole of > Pirsig's project is to keep the Good UNDEFINED and play out the > "metaphysical consequences" from such an assertion. > > As such, maybe you'd be better off discussing your ideas with a Platonist > with an interest in mathematics? > > > You asked: "as a dutch guy i want to know now how you use the word > egotistical here." > > > The term "egotistical" was probably too strong a term to use on my part > but it was your March 27th 2013 comment on the robertpirsig.org Facebook > page: > > > "i am desperately seeking for someone who can proof me wrong." > > > that did strike me as rather an ambitious remark considering that the > brief overview of your "definition" of Quality just above this statement on > the Facebook page was rather obscure. > > In other words, it might be a lot easier to find someone who "can prove > you wrong" if you just write out your thesis clearly. > > For instance, your "definition" just above the comment on the > robertpirsig.org Facebook page states: > > > > Can I define beauty?=value=quality yes!!! > > My definition of quality is: Quality represents "That" where I can > identify with. > > The trick in understanding this definition is in the two dimensional > character of the word "Identification". > > You can Identify a "What" and you can Identify "With" > > "What" is represented by the information dimension. > > "With" is represented by the sensation dimension. > > This is all Mathematically approachable. > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > For a start, I'd say that you can also identify a "When" and a "Who" thus > implying the word "identification" has at least a four dimensional > character. Given further thought, you might realise that it has seven or > eight dimensions or 55! > > You conclude by saying this is "all mathematically approachable". Well > again, that needs to be shown in detail (presumably using algebra). > > I'm sorry I can't spend more time on this but I seem to be juggling 101 > balls in the air at the > moment with various domestic and work commitments (MOQ and otherwise). On > a more positive note one of these "commitments" was finished yesterday. > This is Paul Turner's new "Two Contexts" paper which will be uploaded > sometime later today at robertpirsig.org. > > Best wishes, > > Anthony > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > Eddo Rats stated June 6th 2013: > > > Ant said: > > I don't really have the emotional energy - at the moment - to deal with > people such as yourself with the typical egotistical ideas... > > > Eddo: > > as a dutch guy i want to know now how you use the word egotistical here. > > wiktionairy says; > > 1. Tending to talk excessively about oneself. > 2. Believing oneself to be better and more important than others. > 3. Egoistical <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/egoistical>. > > > I don't recognise myself in neither of these three definitions. i just > wanted to express an intellictual variation on RMP's Thoughts. Probably if > you don't parrot RMP here exactly according certain persons on this MOQ > forum you are to be considered egotistical. That's why in some (irritated) > reactions i used the words pullpit, priest and church becacause of what i > have experienced here on this forum until now, and i also read 10 to 15%, > is in my opinion far from an free open intellectual playing field. > > I opened a discussion to consider a possible definition of quality in a two > dimensional abstract perspective. > Until now.........no reactions.........why? ........................?????? > > Kind regards > > Eddo > > > . > 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
