[Kevin] But you do recognize the reality of others (lower case o)? Which is to say you and me and others enjoy individual lives. From this perspective, what is Quality (capital Q)? Is Quality (capital Q) the same as quality (lower case q)?
[Case] My view of Quality is a bit different than some. I regard Quality as The Way. It exists in the moment of sensation; when we instantly begin the process of classifying sensation into perception. It is a "Blink" moment when we apprehend something as good or bad. It can only be experienced. It can not be defined because each experience is different. When you try to define it you quickly degenerate into legalism. Jesus put it this way: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." Lao Tsu said this: "Thus it was that when the Tao was lost, its attributes appeared; when its attributes were lost, benevolence appeared; when benevolence was lost, the proprieties appeared. I see this as a kind of Humian argument that trouble comes when we begin to rely so heavily on our classifications of past experience that we miss what is fresh in the present. When you define Quality you think you know it when you see it but you stop looking for what is new and unique in its present manifestation. In other words we focus more on our perceptions and memories that on immediate sensation. We are too busy classifying each moment into the categories we have already created to notice that the moment may be showing us a whole new category. [Kevin] Right. Subjective imaginings or objective manifestations. By the way, who are "they?" [Case] There are phenomenologist and Buddhists and solipsists in our midst who deny the existence of external reality. [Kevin] Right. And so our subjective imaginings and objective reality matter. But more importantly, what or how do they matter? Is the measure of their importance or worth or quality itself something subjective or objective? Condemnation and judgement is the dark side of subject/object metaphysics, imo. [Case] This is just my personal take on it but for me perception and memory are whole subjective matters. They are the product of my experience with Other. Other does not always conform to my expectations and this forces me to revise my inner models a lot. Objectivity comes about when I communication with others and we share our experiences. When we can agree upon the commonality of our mutual experiences that is objectivity. Thus objectivity is inter-subjectivity. What the MoQ adds is that change (DQ) and stasis (SQ) are fundamental to both the process of individual perception and to the formation of inter-subjective agreement. Pirsig for example does not say that SOM is not there, only that it is not fundamental. Both are shaped by the interactions of DQ and SQ. [Kevin] Speculative metaphysics? Is there any other kind? [Case] I don't find Taoism to be speculative and to the extent that the MoQ is in line with it I don't find it speculative either. That each individual is alone in a world of their own sensation and perception seems to me to be a matter of concrete fact. That the shadows on our customized cave walls wiggle and hold still is not speculative in my cave. Even in the ideal world of mathematics, Greek geometry dealt exclusively with shape and form and extension. These are static properties. Newton gave us laws of motion which help us define the dynamic properties or relationships changing over time. More recent advances in math and science teach us that "laws" are expressions of probability. Even deterministic, purely causal, laws can produce unpredictable results. For a metaphysics to rise to the level of common understanding it can not be airy and refined. It needs to speak to the common experience of most people. I think most people intuitively know that the world abounds with uncertainty. Our language is rich with metaphors describing this. Our societies are constructed to maximize order and reduce the impact of unpredictable change. The MoQ offers at least the vocabulary and principles to construct what Pirsig said would be "a metaphysics of randomness." It is disappointing to me that instead of taking this seriously he reached for teleology as a kind of Alka-Seltzer for the soul. In other words rather the face up to the uncertainty implied in an undefined path, he chose to call it Quality and treat it as a kind of Omega Point which comes from Teilhard de Chardin and is much abused by Wilber. To me this is a regression to the Aristotelian notion of purpose or final cause. This bit of absurdity should have been abandoned in the 1600's with Bacon and the advent of natural philosophy but as we can see some habits of thought die hard. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
