[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Mark --

I'm trying hard to understand the point of your  argument.  It would seem to
be based on fundamental logic, and the fact  that I have made some
assumptions.  Frankly, I don't see that I have  violated any logical
principles; perhaps you can point them out to  me.

> But Ham, Quality is not postulated. Quality is  experienced
> and as such is fundamental to Human life.

To me,  that's an assumption.
 
Mark: Hello Ham.
"To an experienced Zen Buddhist, asking if one believes in Zen  or one 
believes in the Buddha, sounds a little ludicrous, like asking if one  believes in 
air or water. Similarly Quality is not something you believe in,  Quality is 
something you experience.” 
Robert M. Pirsig (2000)
I read you have studied music theory Ham?
If you have taken the time to study music at this level, i  assume you have a 
passion or love of music?
Now please? Please, let us not start with the Theodore Adorno  stuff!
I too have studied music, and i found allot of the theory to be  complete 
rubbish.
If i have stepped on your toes here, i apologise. I understand  many thinkers 
adore Adorno.
But I am reaching for music as a common ground between us  Ham.
It is no assumption that you are completely sure you identify  Quality music 
when you experience it is it?
Quality is something you experience.
The whole project of ZMM is to indicate  that Quality is reality.
Lila tackles the question of why you and i may differ in our  choice of 
favourite music.
That difference is down to the entire evolutionary path which  lead to us 
both as collections of sq patterns.


> If you restrict yourself to the analytical then you are  not
> going to address the major concerns you express in your  essay.

Ham: I choose not to "restrict myself".  I use an analytical  approach where 
the
subject matter calls for it; I use analogies or metaphors  where logical
analysis doesn't apply or suffice.  My aim to use whatever  means are at hand
to communicate my concepts.
 
Mark: This is interesting because it may be possible to suggest that even  
analysis is metaphor.
At this level the metaphor of analysis is indicating Quality; all  metaphors 
are metaphors for Quality.
But i can't expect you to see this yet - i think we are too far apart for  
that.
Safe to say, if the above is so then analysis is art.
Many a mathematician would readily agree that mathematics is very  beautiful.

> DQ and sq are experienced differently.
> sq is the  known and dead in a creative sense while
> DQ is always new.

Ham: I  don't know what this means.
 
Mark: You responses are becoming terse Ham. It worries me when this happens  
for it is often a prelude to goodbye.
But we have music to save us!
Let us attend a concert and examine our experience of it in terms of DQ and  
sq?
The lead violinist plays her part in a striking and unexpected way.
You have heard the piece many times before, but what is this? Her approach  
is exceptional.
What has just happened in DQ/sq terms?
Your old experience of the piece is sq.
The new exciting experience is DQ experienced in the moment.

I  said:

> Quality has no potentiality to actuate except for  evoking
> the  subject's response to it. This is why I say Quality  cannot
> logically be theorized as the source of  creation.

Mark:
> But you have just stated, 'x has no potential  except y potential.'

Ham: In this example, it is the subject that has the  potential.  WE respond 
to
the quality or value perceived.  Value is  only passive in evoking our
(active) response.
 
Mark: DQ is experienced as the cutting edge of NOW from which old sq  
patterns are extruded.
Understand the magnitude of what this is saying: You ARE nothing but static  
quality patterns being extruded from the immediate DQ cutting edge of 
experience  Ham.
The ontology is basic: sq patterns - evolutionary related. The oldest ones  
are inorganic (energy mass) the less older ones are biological (meat to use a  
filthy phrase some people find useful) more recent patterns are social (those  
patterns which order and advance groups, the earliest of which may be termed  
rituals, later - just laws, institutions, etc.) and most recent  intellectual 
(science, logic - including maths, philosophy and abstract  thought).
YOU are all of these patterns: Your feet are inorganic atoms and molecules  
arranged biologically into flesh and bone; your feet walk to the voting office  
in order to elect representatives in a four yearly ritual of social 
conformity;  your intellect analyses the proportion of votes and relationships between  
them.
It is an interesting philosophical question as to whether you as a  
particular and unique arrangement of sq patterns is passive to DQ?
An examination of High creativity activity such as musicianship, excellence  
in sport, abstract thought, etc., suggests that all these people drop patterns 
 and merge in the moment of Dynamic Quality. This is my personal area of 
interest  regarding the MoQ so i will not push it.

1. more to follow...