[MD] Waiter, I don't think this Quality is any Good

[Mary]

Hello Andre & Marsha,

I agree with you, Marsha, this was a good post.  I appreciate the
clarification of "belief", but Andre, I'm disappointed that you discount the
importance of the levels.

> The static representations thereof, as laid down by Pirsig are general 
> enough to appeal to anybody and accept or reject as a way of ordering 
> experience within an evolutionary frame. That is all.

I disagree.  I think they are integral to the MoQ.  Imagine if Pirsig had
proposed the MoQ without them?  Everything is Quality.  Period.  No
explanation, no hierarchy.  I would look at that and yawn.  Ok, so
everything is Quality, what the heck is that?  What difference does it make
if you call it Quality or Reality without the levels?  Without the levels,
how do you explain things that you perceive as low-quality events?  

I think the levels are important, and not just any levels you'd care to make
up, either.  Those carefully thought-out levels of his were the major thing
that made the MoQ comprehensible to me in the beginning, and though I've
been aware of the MoQ for many years, I've never been able to crack the
levels.  I mean, I can't think of anything that didn't fall into one or
another.  If you jack with the levels the whole thing doesn't make sense
anymore. 

The intellectual level has been the most contentious, and so far, nobody has
proposed an argument that sways me from my opinion of what it is.  I'll
throw this once more into the fray.  Talk me out of it.  I would appreciate
that if I am wrong.

The levels are patterns of value, with emphasis on the value.  At the social
level, the set of patterns that are valued are those that foster and
maintain the cohesiveness of the group.  I don't think anyone much disagrees
with this.  The intellectual level is not a description of intellect,
subject-object logic, or language as I have heard it said here.  We already
had intellect, subject-object logic, and language long before it arose and
latched itself into place.  Those are the tools only.  It is a set of
patterns of value that prize seeking the truest description or understanding
of things possible, regardless of your social belief system, language, or
even your own ego.  The intellectual level represents the scientific method
in its purest form.  "Let's go out and try to answer some questions without
being clouded by preconceived notions and social values.  Let's look for the
best explanation we can find based on empirical evidence, even if it proves
us wrong, and then, if we later find new evidence we didn't know about
before, let's incorporate that too and change our explanation as necessary."
To me, that's what it is.  Not an evolutionary developmental stage.  It is
an attitude.  Now, convince me I am wrong. I'm open to it.

Thanks,
Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of MarshaV
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:11 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Waiter, I don't think this Quality is any Good


Andre, this is a wonderful post!!!!!!!     - Marsha   


On Jan 15, 2010, at 4:24 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Steve to Andre:
> ... can you explain what you did mean by "I don't believe in Quality"?
> 
> Andre:
> Hi Steve, I really cannot remember whether I had anwered this or
> not..rather hectic here. Anyway, here goes...
> I wasn't playing cat and mouse nor word games. My experience of
> Quality is as real as my experience of the existence of my computer at
> which I work at the moment, or the chair upon which I sit.
> 
> Do I 'believe'. in the existence of my computer? Do I believe in the
> existence of the chair. This is a peculiar use of the word 'believe'.
> 
> Do you 'believe' in the sun rise when you see it?
> 
> Did Lao Tzu 'believe' in the Tao?
> Did Siddharta Gautama 'believe' in enlightenment?
> Did Jesus 'believe' in God the Father? ( supposing Jesus existed and
> actually said what he allegedly said).
> 
> Does Pirsig 'believe' in Quality?
> 
> The simple answer of course is no.
> 
> Look at this:
> He crosses a lonesome valley, out of the mythos, and emerges as if
> from a dream, seeing that his whole consciousness, the mythos, has
> been a dream and no one's dream but his own, a dream he must now
> sustain of his own efforts. Then even ``he'' disappears and only the
> dream of himself remains with himself in it. And the Quality, the
> areté he has fought so hard for, has sacrificed for, has never
> betrayed, but in all that time has never once understood, now makes
> itself clear to him and his soul is at rest.
> 
> At no point does Pirsig state that he 'believes' in Quality. No, he is
> absolutely convinced it is here. And, of course even more, it is
> fundamental to everything.
> 
> It can be apprehended by direct experience. No belief required. If
> belief was required you'd have to take Pirsig's word for its
> existence, but you don't.
> 
> This is what I liked about Matt's post the other day. Quality is. It
> doesn't belong to Pirsig!
> 
> The static representations thereof, as laid down by Pirsig are general
> enough to appeal to anybody and accept or reject as a way of ordering
> experience within an evolutionary frame. That is all.
> 
> Pirsig has left the door wide open to find out for ourselves how to
> live within the DQ/SQ configuration. Nowhere does he say; "Thou
> shall..." and nowhere does he say: 'This is the way it is and this is
> its ultimate goal!!
> 
> The static representations are no papal bull.
> 
> It is a biographical metaphysics. Perhaps a cultural biographical
> metaphysics as well. It sure is the first metaphysics, or any other
> philosophy that I know of, in which its 'subject matter' is allowed a
> voice....a part to play.
> 
> The MoQ is a living program in which we are all allowed to play our part.
> 
> No ultimate or absolute goal because this hasn't been played out.
> These issues are being played out at the code levels, the 'battle'
> zones. The DQ/SQ configuration.
> 
> I'm beginning to rattle on now, sorry.
> 
> For what it is worth.
> Andre
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Andre

  
_______________________________________________________________________
   
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...     
 






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/