[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Greetings, Dan [Platt quoted]  --
>
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Platt wrote:
>
>> Good to hear from you. But, with all due respect,
>> DQ isn't something we perceive. That's SOM.
>> Seen from the MOQ perspective DQ is both the
>> perceiver and the perceived prior to becoming SQ.
>> There is no separation between you and your experience.
>> As Erwin Schrodinger put it: "The external world and
>> consciousness are one and the same thing."
>
> You asked:
>>
>> How could we define Dynamic Quality if we cannot perceive it?
>
> To which Platt responded:
>>
>> DQ cannot be an object of subject's "perception" because
>> DQ comes prior to all such S/O intellectual patterns.
>> "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to
>> intellectual abstractions." (Lila, 5)
>
> [Dan quoting Pirsig on Sun, June 20]:
>>
>> "Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone.
>> Consciousness can be described is a process of defining
>> Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are
>> static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality.
>> So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both
>> infinitely definable and undefinable because definition
>> never exhausts it." [Robert Pirsig, LILA'S CHILD]
>
> You both have good points, but you are using Pirsig's quotes to contradict
> himself.  As is is often the case in eptstemological discussions, semantics
> get in the way of comprehension.  Platt is using "perception" as synonomous
> with direct "experience", while Pirsig is talking about "consciously
> defined" experience.
>
> Perception is defined as; "a RESULT of perceiving; observation (concept); a
> capacity for comprehension."   Experience is defined as "the conscious
> perception (apprehension) of reality; direct participation in events."
> Clearly  "perception" is somewhat ambiguous in the context of experience,
> which is why I prefer "sensibility" when speaking of primary or "undefined"
> perception.

Dan:
Hello Ham. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the contradiction. Could you
spell it out more clearly, please?

>Ham:
> Moving away from the dictionary, I think we can all agree that the DQ which
> Pirsig calls "undefined Quality" (and I call primary Value) is directly
> SENSED by the subject (self), whereas we only apprehend it experientially in
> its "defined" or "objective" form.

Dan:
The MOQ states that subjects and objects are convenient shorthand for
patterns of value. Dynamic Quality senses the individual, not the
other way around.

Ham:
This doesn't mean that Quality (Value)
> is essentially objective but, rather, that its essence is cognitively
> identified (associated) with things and events in the process of experience.

Dan:
Again, subjects and objects are a convenient shorthand for patterns of value.

>Ham:
> Existence is an individual experience.  So that Quality, Goodness, and
> Morality are psycho-emotional "gages" used to measure the relative value of
> particular experiences.  This bears out Protagoras's maxim that "Man is the
> measure of all things."  (Unfortunately, I'm afraid Pirsig would say that
> Quality is its own standard.)

Dan:
I think the MOQ states that Quality has Lila, not the other way
around. The MOQ does subscribe to the notion that man is the measure
but this doesn't refer to an individual man but rather man as in
mankind (or humankind for those of the PC persuasion).

I'm unsure what you mean by Quality as its own standard. Perhaps you
might enlarge your thinking on this when you have some time.

As for the "individual," Robert Pirsig states:

"It’s important to remember that both science and Eastern religions
regard “the individual” as an empty concept. It is literally a figure
of speech. If you start assigning a concrete reality to it, you will
find yourself in a philosophic quandary." [LILA'S CHILD]

>Ham:
> I hope this helps to resolve your dispute.  And if Andre is listening, no, I
> will not try to explain Bo's SOL because it remains incomprehensible to me.

Dan:
I don't think we have a dispute so much as we have a different way of
viewing reality. But that's true for all of us. We've each experienced
a unique set of circumstances that have graven us into the image we
hold.


>Ham:
> Nice to have you inputs again, Dan.

Dan:
Thank you, Ham. I enjoy popping in from time to time. And thank you
for your thoughts as well.

Dan