[MD] [Bulk] Awareness of Quality

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


[Previously]:
> Perhaps the first step is to ask individuals to consider
> if there is a question to be asked regards to quality.
> That is how Pirsig got there. He used the notion of
> quality to achieve his personal world view. Through
> this he then grew that into a systematic representation
> of quality.
>
> 1. Underlying everything is their quality.

[Marsha]:
> Don't you think the first step would be to get individuals
> to consider there is a question to be asked in regards to reality?

[Ham]:
> For what it is worth from one of two alleged screed-writers
> on this forum, I applaud both of these suggestions. With all due
> respect to RMP, we might also consider whether "quality" is
> really the best term for our awareness of this reality.

[Mark];
> Perhaps it is not the best way. But this is MoQ so I'm going to
> stick with it for now, see where we get.
>
> 1. The underlying essence of everything is Quality
> 2. Quality is composed of a dynamic component and a
> static component.
> 3. The nature of Quality is to coalesce into patterns
> and hierarchies,
> 4. The direction of Quality, on a temporal basis, is
> towards higher morality.
> 5. ....
>
> Have I got this wrong? If so please correct and I will appreciate it.

To "stick with MoQ" is to disallow consideration of alternative premises. 
I'm assuming those you've listed represent the author's view, so that, 
unless "for now" means you intend to proceed from the official doctrine as a 
start, any modification suggested will be regarded as heretical.  With that 
caveat in mind, here are some suggestions to consider. ...

1.  As you know, I prefer the equivalent term "Value" to "Quality" for 
reasons I've enumerated previously.  Quality to me connotes the difference 
between a fine cigar and a paper-wrapped imitation.  Value is a measure of 
my esthetic, emotional, moral or intellectual appreciation.  With that 
substitution, I think we can agree that Value is the ground (or essence) of 
experiential reality.

2.  Along with "'levels", which even Bo and Krimel have suggested we don't 
need, the dynamic/static construct is misconceived, confusing, and 
unnecessary for a value-based philosophy.  While many will not agree, I 
suggest instead that we consider Value (in the relational sense) as the 
experiential reduction or differentiation of the uncreated Source, however 
that Source is defined.

3. I'm sorry, but aggregation, coalescence, and pattern formation are not 
"components" of Value.  This epistemology is just plain wrong.  The 
patterning (i.e., objectification, reification) of Value is what Experience 
and Intellect does.  Forming concrete images from sensible values is a 
cognitive function of the individual, not a "process" performed by Value.

4. Since we can't know what is moral or immoral except as a social 
principle, there is no empirical or logical justification for positing Value 
as an "evolutionary progression".  This is simply anthropomorphizing Quality 
(Value).  If anything moves toward "betterness" it is man himself or the 
community of mankind.  I realize that this
contradicts Pirsig's thesis, but offer it anyway as another point for 
consideration.  (Incidentally, I too like Andre's "driving force" analogy 
and frequently use it to explain how Value drives mankind in the course of 
history.)

You're off to a good start, Mark.  I only hope my radical suggestions don't 
upset the applecart prematurely.  Perhaps others will show us how some of my 
points can be incorporated with less "damage" to Pirsig's premises.

Good luck with this project,
Ham

On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:28 AM, markhsmit wrote:

> Hi,
> It appears to me that many in this post have an awareness
> of Quality. The MoQ serves to transfer our personal awareness
> through words and logic and references to another. Once such
> an awareness is captured, then it becomes subjective. It does
> not then rely on the objective transfer, but becomes internalized
> as a new view. At that point it becomes separate from the discussion
> which preceded it. Many of us are trying to impart (or infect) that
> personal
> awareness, each in our own way. The result is, hopefully, a consensus
> on the best way to impart it to others. It is not so much whether one
> view is right or wrong, but whether one method is more effective
> than another.
>
> I can sense the frustration by some when others do not get their
> awareness, when the relator uses the method by which they
> achieved it ("how can you not get it?!"). It is difficult when one
> tries to impart a non-intellectual realization with words. Some
> philosophies tend to be easier to assimilate. This may be a
> measure of the reality of the metaphysics itself. In some cases
> only a small number of like minded individuals share a common
> awareness. In other cases a large number get it. If truth is in
> numbers, perhaps it is the vector being used not the subject
> itself that matters.
>
> If MoQ is to become a pandemic, maybe simpler and less wordy
> concepts should be used. I see a big difference
> between ZAMM and Lila in terms of such infection. Why is
> that? Does Lila get too far away from the truth? If an understanding
> of reality using the concept of Quality is indeed the most
> efficient method for creating reality awareness, perhaps it
> should be simplified. The twelve steps of achieving an
> awareness of the world through MoQ.
>
> Do we expect Quality to be the right method of imparting
> the awareness of reality?
>
> Mark