[MD] Art of Value

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Platt Holden" <pholden at davtv.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Art of Value
>Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:38:43 -0500
>
>Hi Dan,
>
>Responding to your post . . .
>
> > Hi Platt
> >
> > Thank you for your reply. The MOQ is built on morality: "Because Quality 
>is
> > morality. Make no mistake about it. They're identical. And if Quality is
> > the primary reality of the world then that means morality is also the
> > primary reality of the world. The world is primarily a moral order." 
>(LILA)
>
>Full agreement. Also according to the MOQ, morality equals reality equals
>values equals Quality equals direct experience. From LILA, Chap. 5:
>
>[Dan]
>"Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual
>abstractions."
>
>This statement begs the question, "Direct experience by whom or what?"
>Pirsig denies the question, saying: "Quality is indivisible, undefinable
>and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a known . . ."
>
>Right off the bat, Pirsig admits to a impasse. His MOQ really can't be
>described. But, he'll go ahead and describe it anyway.
>
>This creates an almost insurmountable block in comprehending the MOQ.
>But, acknowledging that difficulty, let us continue.
>
>[Dan]
>  > Morality means to help others, or at least to do no harm.
>Platt:
>In the MOQ, morality exists at four levels with each level attempting to
>dominate the others. Thus, there is a constant war going on between
>the levels. So "helping" or "not harming" is NOT what morality means
>in the MOQ. Morality in the MOQ means conflict between moral levels plus
>a mysterious moral force called Dynamic Quality.

Hi Platt

Thank you for your reply.

Yes there is conflict yet we must take care, as Robert Pirsig points out:

"Intellect is going its own way, and in doing so is at war with society, 
seeking to subjugate society, to put society under lock and key. An 
evolutionary morality says it is moral for intellect to do so, but it also 
contains a warning: Just as a society that weakens its people's physical 
health endangers its own stability, so does an intellectual pattern that 
weakens and destroys the health of its social base also endanger its own 
stability." (LILA)

The MOQ is based on morality, not some obscure kind of morality all its own 
but the morality we were taught as children... to do onto others as we would 
have them do onto us. Or at least, do no harm. Would you agree?

>
>[Dan]
> > Looking to
> > Buddhism there are 4 noble truths. (1) Suffering, (2) Sources of 
>suffering,
> > (3) Cessation of suffering, (4) True paths.
>Platt:
>I understand this is the start of an explanation of why the "self" is
>considered by Pirsig to be an illusion, "an empty concept."
>
>[Dan]
> > Suffering is like an illness we all have. In order to effect a cure, we
> > have to diagnose the illness. Buddhism teaches there are 3 types of
> > suffering: pain, change, and pervasive conditioning. We all know what 
>pain
> > feels like. Change is like the song that we hear for the first time and 
>it
> > sounds so good that we go out and buy it. We can't wait to get home and
> > listen to it. And it sounds good. But not quite as good as the first 
>time.
> > And after we listen to it several times it loses its luster. We don't
> > understand why we liked it so much in the beginning. That is called the
> > suffering of change.
> >
> > The third level of suffering is deeper. Pervasive conditioning arises 
>when
> > we begin to see ourselves separate and apart from the world. People 
>become
> > what they produce. Their function is to make money to buy more and more 
>and
> > more. There is a Buddhist saying that the wealthier a person becomes the
> > greater the suffering they endure. The fundamental misconception of the
> > self as separate and apart from the world gives rise to hatred, lust, 
>envy,
> > and belligerance. When you are hit you want to hit back.
> >
> > Buddhism teaches that the solution to suffering is the process of
> > overcoming the pervasive conditioning of seeing the self as separate 
>from
> > the world. We have to understand the true nature of people and things. 
>When
> > the individual self is seen as an empty concept, as a convenient 
>shorthand,
> > Buddhism teaches that we enter a state beyond suffering. The true path 
>is
> > morality. Thus the MOQ is built on morality.
> >
> > I hope this helps answer your very good question.
> > Dan
>Platt:
>I don't buy all the suffering bit, but I agree that the MOQ and Buddhism
>both claim the "true nature" of the world, i.e., reality, is the absence
>of any division between self and other, or knower and known -- that the
>commonly held conceptual division between subject/object, mind/matter,
>self/other, etc. is a delusion and a snare.

Dan:
I am not selling suffering but if you ever want to buy a nice house, I'm the 
guy to talk to. It's good we agree so far though.

>Platt:
>Thus, the MOQ posits a disembodied "pure experience" as the essence
>of reality. Moreover, this "pure experience" is the same as Quality which
>is the same as Morality. And to the question, "Experience by whom or
>what?" the answer appears to be "Don't ask, because the only possible
>answer has to be expressed in words that divide what is essentially
>indivisible."

Dan:
Since we know the answer already there is no need to ask, imo.

>Platt:
>So I basically agree with your interpretation of how Buddhism and the MOQ
>view the self or individual. But if all this be true, how in the world do
>you convince the Douglas Hofstadters of the world who claim "I am a
>strange loop."???

Dan:
I would suggest that their cups of tea are full. One cannot pour more tea 
into a full cup. That's not to say Hofstadter is wrong, however. We are 
probably comparing apples with oranges, so to speak. The contexts from which 
we are writing are different although I suspect they are more similar than 
one might see at first glance.

>Platt:
>Or forget Hofstadter, how do I explain it to my 12
>year old granddaughter?

Dan:
Love has worked well for me. I'm unsure anything else matters.

Thank you for reading,

Dan