[MD] Primer

[gav]

hey y'all,
comments interspersed

--- Squonkonguitar at aol.com wrote:

> Quoting gav <gav_gc at yahoo.com.au>:
> 
> > okay so here's my  architectural idea:
> > **3 parts:**
> > 
> > 1. quality is the  fundamental 'stuff' of the
> universe.
> > 
> >  the highest most  correct level. monistic,
> mystical.
> > quality =immediate pre-intellectual  experience
> > experience produces subjects and objects; rather
> than
> >  subjects experiencing objects.
> 
> Platt: Quality is not a level.
>  
> Mark: 6-10-06: Hello Gav and Platt.
> Platt is correct here Gav, Quality is not a level in
> the Metaphysics of  
> Quality.
> Any MoQ primer IMHO has to remain within the
> language of the MoQ itself:  The 
> main terms are DQ and sq.
> You have begun with the Quality of ZMM, and the
> least said about this the  
> better:
> 'Mystics will tell you that once you've
> opened the door to metaphysics  you can say good bye
> to any genuine
> understanding of reality.  Thought  is not a path to
> reality.  It sets
> obstacles in that path because when  you try to use
> thought to approach
> something that is prior to thought your  thinking
> does not carry you toward
> that something.  It carries you away  from it.  To
> define something is to
> subordinate it to a tangle of  intellectual
> relationships.  And when you do
> that you destroy real  understanding.
> The central reality of mysticism, the reality that
> Phædrus had  called
> "Quality" in his first book, is not a metaphysical
> chess piece.   Quality
> doesn't have to be defined.  You understand it
> without  definition, ahead of
> definition.  Quality is a direct experience 
> independent of and prior to
> intellectual abstractions.
> Quality is  indivisible, undefinable and unknowable
> in the sense that there
> is a knower  and a known, but a metaphysics can be
> none of these things.   A
> metaphysics must be divisible, definable and
> knowable, or there isn't  any
> metaphysics.  Since a metaphysics is essentially a
> kind of  dialectical
> definition and since Quality is essentially outside
> definition,  this means
> that a "Metaphysics of Quality" is essentially a
> contradiction in  terms, a
> logical absurdity.' (Lila. ch. 5)
> Rather than introduce notions of levels, it may be
> sufficient to refer to  
> Quality as a mystic monism.

 that's why i referred to 'quality' as 'mystical' and
'monistic'. i am not using it as a metaphysical chess
piece at all. i am leaving it undivided, undefined.

the reason i include a mystical level as primary is
because well *the mystical level is primary*, as
pirsig himself states both in ZAMM (implicitly) and
Lila (explicitly); any metaphysics is relatively
degenerate to just leaving it alone 

ZAMM shouldn't be ignored; i find this strange as it
is the mystical, dynamic book out of the two and it
deals with the absolute in a beautiful way.

a lot of our probs stem from the fact that we are
putting analytic stuff at the top: dividing stuff up
FIRST, instead of SECOND.

i wanted the first level of the primer, the primary
level, to *not be* about metaphysics or divisions or
intellect really. i wanted it to have its own poetic,
organic logic. cos thinking is secondary to
experience.


> > 2. Quality's first division: DQ/sq: the absolute
> and
> > the  relative; the unmanifest and the manifest.
> 
> Platt: There are no  absolutes.
>  
> Mark: 6-10-06: I find myself half agreeing with
> Platt.
> Personally, i would reserve absolute for Quality.
> DQ/sq is the language of the MoQ, and Quality is
> damaged in the process,  but 
> that's life. Fair enough.
> I've read Lila and i can't find a quote which
> supports the suggestion that  
> DQ is absolute.
> I've read Lila and i can't find a quote which
> supports the suggestion that  
> DQ is the unmanifest.
>  
> I've read Lila and i can't find a quote which
> supports the suggestion that  
> sq is the manifest.
> I'm not sure a MoQ Primer should state these things;
> i think it is  
> confusing: experience is of DQ and sq.

DQ is unpatterned; sq is patterned. nother way of
saying the same thing. 'unmanifest' and 'manifest' are
the same IMO and give us  crossovers with other
philosopies.

i think i agree about leaving 'quality', alone,  as
absolute. cheers.

 
> Gav:
> > the next highest level. less correct or 
> fundamental
> > than 1. but more correct than 3.
> > the code of art.  the interdependence of the
> dynamic
> > and the static. the reason why  quality means
> different
> > things to different people.
> 
> Platt:  Quality is neither correct nor incorrect.
>  
> Mark: 6-10-06: Platt's statement must be so, as
> Quality is undefined:  
> correctness is more aligned with static intellectual
> quality; to be correct  is to 
> be true, and truth requires static definitions.

you both miss the point here. i am not saying quality
is correct/incorrect. once we start making
intellectual divisions we are not talking of quality
but of different ways of ***representing it
abstractly***, some of which are more correct or
accurate, mystically speaking, than others. 

that is why the code of art trumps the other codes,
because the DQ/sq level is more correct (or moral if
you like) than the codes of intellectual, social,
biological and inorganic interplay. 

reckon a general rule is: more divisions, less
accuracy.

> I applaud your attempting to integrating ZMM
> (Quality) and Lila (DQ/sq),  but 
> it must be done sensitively.
> I think you've placed grace under pressure.

yes you've grasped the mission. i don't want to demean
or subordinate quality to the intellect, which i
believe discuss too often does. academia would do this
till it killed its subject i believe. 

it seems good to me - vital actually -  to reinforce
the primacy of the experiential over the intellectual.

>  
> > 3. Static Quality divided into intellectual,
> social,
> >  biological, inorganic static patterns.
> > 
> > the evolutionary  relationship between the
> discrete
> > levels and the moral codes and  conflicts their
> > interplay produces.
>  
> Mark: 6-10-06: This is fine, but i feel it must be
> stressed that DQ is at  
> play at all levels all the time.
> Both sq and DQ are required for life.

the int/soc/bio/ino breakdown deals with conflicts
between ***existing patterns***. the prior level,
DQ/Sq, deals with the interplay between existing
patterns and the unpatterned (DQ).

now i think keeping them separate avoids confusion and
results in greater practicality - applying them to
real dilemmas. but i may be wrong.

you are right in that DQ is a factor here. ie
understanding the evolutionary relationship and
migration of patterns towards DQ (a vitalist
revitalisation!)

of course when you break things up you are being
arbitrary to a degree. keeping DQ as a cameo in this
level keeps it simple and prevents confusion i
believe.

 
> Gav:
> > these are the three different levels of the MOQ as
>  far
> > as i can tell; i believe a lot of our confusion
> comes
> > from  mixing these levels up. for instance the
> primary
> > level - quality =  pre-intellectual undivided exp
> - is
> > still causing trouble becasue folk  don't get it
> or
> > don't get that it IS primary.
>  
> Mark: 6-10-06: I disagree Gav. First of all, Quality
> is not a level within  
> the MoQ.
> Strictly speaking, anyone who wishes to remain
> mystic rejects the  MoQ.

sorry then i am out of here!!!!! well i want my cake
and i want to eat it (what a strange saying!). i am a
mystic (henece the primacy of the top level); but i
recognise the intellectual and practical value of the
MOQ. in fact i don't see how you can dig the MOQ
without being mystical. i mean it is all about the
mystical at the end of the day, no matter how you cut
it up: quality is still undefined quality.

> I feel i have identified for myself a number of
> apparently well respected  
> and supported members of this forum who behave as if
> this is the case.
> They all, without exception, are dominated by social
> patterns of value,  
> because in rejecting the intellectual pattern of the
> MoQ, the social becomes  
> their primary structure. It's dangerous, and it
> blocks the progress of the  MoQ.
> The Liverpool 2005 conference is a prime example.

don't know if i get you here, but i think you are
talking about the motif of the times (social giant v
intellectually guided individual). this is such an
important clash: deserves a book of its own probably.

> 
> Platt: You've  named five, not three levels. 
> Off to a shaky start. :-)
>  
> Mark: 6-10-06: Platt may be right.
> I hope i've gone a little further than Platt in my
> criticisms of your  
> architectural idea Gav? My aim is to contribute
> positively to your  project.

cheers mark, you definitely have. thankyou. hope i
moved toward clearer waters.
 
love right back at ya!
gav

> Love,
> Mark
> 

> 
okay looks like we have already run into big examples
of why a primer is very necessary. wow.

huge disagreements twixt me and platt and mark on
simple basics. if we get agreement on the the basics
then, theoretically, should have a lot less trouble
from what is extrapolated from them later on.


	

	
		
____________________________________________________ 
On Yahoo!7 
Messenger: Plug-in the fun with handy plug-ins 
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com