[MD] The Quest for Quality

ml mbtlehn at ix.netcom.com
Sat Sep 13 21:08:46 PDT 2008 

Chris / Margaret / All

Pardon my discomfort...and forgive
a point that may be too fine, but it seems
that to equate Good with Quality, while
tempting and seemingly harmless, may
be more misleading than we first realize
upon hearing it.

Quality flashes or ripples through perception
before the impulse, the instinct, to understand
snaps it's iron cage of judgement by the
"conditioned mind" over the fresh unfolding of
perception.

Or to say it another way:
The assignment of "good" is a judgement
assigned to the memory of quality--the image,
the reflection,  of what is gone.

Zenlike it might be termed that the "birds of
the distracted mind" are trying to peck at the
shadow of the raptor that passed by a minute ago.

Your instinct of the futility is about right.

thanks--mel


----- Original Message -----
From: "Christoffer Ivarsson" <IvarssonChristoffer at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 2:30 PM
Subject: [MD] The Quest for Quality


> Margaret (and the rest of you)
>
> Been philosophising on my balcony a bit. Good stuff =)
>
> They way I see it, evolution is indeed moving toward Good, or Quality. But
> we are not equipped to understand the full meaning of Quality, or perhaps
> not even a fraction. But we are trying. I think that's what it's all
about,
> the movement of the patterns. When a Quality event, or experience occurs,
> that is in essence seeing a bit more of The Good, Quality. we move towards
> it, in embedded in it, a part of it and created of it, it is always there.
>
> Science, Art, Philosophy, everything - it's all moving, expanding our
> understanding of Quality, the Dynamic Quality thet we can never hope to
> fully understand, but that we are bound to keep trying to understand by
the
> very nature of reality. Every time we gain another piece of knowledge, on
> any level, that is moving one tiny, tiny step towards pure Quality. Art
and
> science is really the same thing - all that it is, all it's ever been, is
an
> expansion of Quality understanding. Sometimes we can make sense of it, as
> with science, and place it in systems and perhaps translate it into
> mathematics, and sometimes - most notably in art - it's just a feeling of
> something Dynamic: a new aspect of Quality/Reality has been glimpsed.
>
> I am convinced we can never hope to fully understand Quality/Reality, and
> perhaps that is the nature of static patterns. Thus our limited labelling
of
> "Good" and "Bad" and even the word Quality, and all the other words in the
> MOQ are far removed from complete understanding - as Pirsig himself points
> out.
>
> As I myself practice Zen, the thought sometimes arises in my mind that
> enlightenment must me a full understanding of Quality, the whole of it.
But
> then I realize that thought is futile and useless, and I drop it.
>
> Well, I'll be going to Greece for a week now, with m family, mostly for
the
> sun of course, but I'll bring my course literature with me - I'm taking
> philosophy courses now - and I must say it's inspiring to think of it all
> like that way, all these philosophers through the times, all following
that
> unstoppable quest for Quality understanding.
>
> =) well, late now.
>
> All the best
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> > Thanks Chris -
> > I am going to think over your last paragraph. I think I basically agree
> > with
> > it. I have problems with the word "Good" - even defining quality as a
> > state
> > of "Good", because it seems to imply a state that is 'better' - which
> > sounds
> > quite right as you describe it above, but not
> > when I try to apply this reasoning at a much bigger level -
> >
> > I don't know if I (a human alive in a collaboratively defined time as
2008
> > AD (all subjective) - am in a state that is "Good" relative
> > to whatever 'good' state that existed on this planet before humans
> > evolved.
> >
> > I have a problem with the idea of 'evolution' evolving toward something
> > 'better' or with greater quality even.
> >
> > I can say that the states change in ways that entities perceive as
better
> > quality relative to whatever state they were just previously in, but I
> > don't
> > know that if you try to elevate that thinking to encompass bigger
> > patterns -
> >
> > are humans a better state than no humans? is bach a better quality than
> > Hendrix? we've attempted to address some of these questions before in
this
> > discussion group and I just don't know if I can get into applying the
idea
> > that we are evolving socially or intellectually...changing definitely -
> > but towards 'better' states.
> >
> > So back to the question 'Can DQ be Bad?'
> > Since I think Good and Bad are subjective, then I think Static and
Dynamic
> > Quality is neither  "Good" nor "Bad", but is also both "Good" and "Bad"
> > both
> > at the same time.
> >
> > Sorry about repeating myself - mostly I'm using this e-mail to flesh out
> > my
> > thoughts a little more.
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:13:29 -0400
> > From: "Margaret Warren" <carma at carmapro.com>
> > Subject: Re: [MD] Can DQ be Bad?
> > To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> > Message-ID: <20080912141331.396224C386 at spunkymail-mx8.g.dreamhost.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> >
> > sorry - I didn't use the correct punctuation here...
> >
> > in this sentence - I meant to say this:
> >
> > are humans a better state than no humans? is bach a better quality than
> > Hendrix? we've attempted to address some of these questions before in
this
> > discussion group and I just don't know if I can get into applying the
idea
> > that we are evolving socially or intellectually...changing definitely -
> > but
> > towards 'better' states?
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org [mailto:moq_discuss-
> >> bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Margaret Warren
> >> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 9:55 AM
> >> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [MD] Can DQ be Bad?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Margaret!
> >> >
> >> > I liked your post.
> >> >
> >> > This:
> >> > > there is DQ BECAUSE we have SQ...or vice versa.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > is excactly what I mean.
> >> >
> >> > > i.e. there has to be some static pattern before something dynamic
can
> >> > > occur
> >> > > to change it and vice versa.
> >> >
> >> > > we resonate with other entities who share similar perceptions and
> >> learn
> >> > a
> >> > > lot from those entities who have differing perceptions
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I agree I think. And I would add, that the Good that is pure
> >> > Quality/dynamic quality is what keeps the static patterns going,
> >> > because
> >> > everything moves toward what they thing quality is, that is from
their
> >> > static and flawed point of view. so when they see another aspect of
> >> Good,
> >> > well, then that's dynamic indeed, but the Good was always there,
> >> > infinitely
> >> > greater in its whole than they can know/understand/perceive.
> >> >
> >> > I think. This way we don't make Plato's mistake.
> >> >
> >> Thanks Chris -
> >> I am going to think over your last paragraph. I think I basically agree
> >> with
> >> it. I have problems with the word "Good" - even defining quality as a
> >> state
> >> of "Good", because it seems to imply a state that is 'better' - which
> >> sounds
> >> quite right as you describe it above, but not
> >> when I try to apply this reasoning at a much bigger level -
> >>
> >> I don't know if I (a human alive in a collaboratively defined time as
> >> 2008
> >> AD (all subjective) - am in a state that is "Good" relative
> >> to whatever 'good' state that existed on this planet before humans
> >> evolved.
> >>
> >> I have a problem with the idea of 'evolution' evolving toward something
> >> 'better' or with greater quality even.
> >>
> >> I can say that the states change in ways that entities perceive as
better
> >> quality relative to whatever state they were just previously in, but I
> >> don't
> >> know that if you try to elevate that thinking to encompass bigger
> >> patterns
> >> -
> >>
> >> are humans a better state than no humans? is bach a better quality than
> >> Hendrix? we've attempted to address some of these questions before in
> >> this
> >> discussion group and I just don't know if I can get into applying the
> >> idea
> >> that we are evolving socially or intellectually...changing definitely -
> >> but towards 'better' states.
> >>
> >> So back to the question 'Can DQ be Bad?'
> >> Since I think Good and Bad are subjective, then I think Static and
> >> Dynamic
> >> Quality is neither  "Good" nor "Bad", but is also both "Good" and "Bad"
> >> both
> >> at the same time.
> >>
> >> Sorry about repeating myself - mostly I'm using this e-mail to flesh
out
> >> my
> >> thoughts a little more.
> >>
> >> Margaret
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >> Archives:
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> >> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date:
9/4/2008
> >> 6:57 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:16:05 -0600
> > From: "ml" <mbtlehn at ix.netcom.com>
> > Subject: Re: [MD] (no subject)
> > To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> > Message-ID: <004201c914e2$18ce2fa0$0400000a at dimensional.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Zen and Now.
> >
> > Richardson has written a book that  walks/rides a
> > deliberately winding line between homage, biography,
> > invitation to revisit both Pirsig's thoughts, and the same
> > type of 'real world' opportunity to look at things through the
> > lens of quality.  It is (deliberately, I think) light on the MOQ
> > but clear on pointing the reader to a shared consensus of
> > Quality.
> >
> > It is a personal journey and a journalist's second-pair-of-eyes
> > on the world mythologized in Pirsig's ZMM book.  We get to
> > see some of the "chorus" members of his book cast in a
> > second light.  (As those who've played at photography know
> > a secondary light source can add depth and complexity and
> > at time clarity to an image.  It can hint and imply more)
> >
> > His work has a hint of melancholy and a touch of his personal
> > worries.  Both add the flavor of the struggle of any seeker
> > after what is "more."  It is smartly written and should serve to
> > open the door to ZMM for those who are daunted by the work
> > itself and yet it is a pleasant literary meditation on the familiar
> > feel of the original journey for readers who've come to give a
> > place in their heart to ZMM.
> >
> > There are technical points that may be arguable by folks
> > who've spent years considering the whole-of-it, but just
> > as good Jazz can evoke another piece of music in it's own
> > terms, this book brings a fresh echo to recall the enduring
> > original.
> >
> > thanks--mel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "MarshaV" <marshalz at charter.net>
> > To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 2:27 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MD] (no subject)
> >
> >
> >>
> >> dmb,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the notification of this book.
> >>
> > <snip>
> > Marsha
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 05:17 PM 9/11/2008, you wrote:
> >>
> >> >MOQers all:
> >> >
> >> >Mark Richardson's book was just launched. It just arrived in the
> >> >mail today, so I haven't read "ZEN AND NOW: On the Trail of Robert
> >> >Pirsig and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and can't yet say if
> >> >it's any good or not. Still, it's exciting to see any book about
> >> >Pirsig's work. Ian, Henry and this forum are mentioned by name.
> >> >There is a website with a few photos, reviews and such.
> > (www.zenandnow.org)
> >> >
> >> <snip>
> >>dmb
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 7
> > Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:28:16 -0400
> > From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> > Subject: Re: [MD] (no subject)
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Message-ID:
> > <20080912142824.GGN10008.aarprv04.charter.net at Marsha-PC.charter.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> >
> >
> >
> > I've already ordered it and looking forward to reading it.  - Marsha
> >
> >
> > At 10:16 AM 9/12/2008, you wrote:
> >>All,
> >>
> >>Zen and Now.
> >>
> >>Richardson has written a book that  walks/rides a
> >>deliberately winding line between homage, biography,
> >>invitation to revisit both Pirsig's thoughts, and the same
> >>type of 'real world' opportunity to look at things through the
> >>lens of quality.  It is (deliberately, I think) light on the MOQ
> >>but clear on pointing the reader to a shared consensus of
> >>Quality.
> >>
> >>It is a personal journey and a journalist's second-pair-of-eyes
> >>on the world mythologized in Pirsig's ZMM book.  We get to
> >>see some of the "chorus" members of his book cast in a
> >>second light.  (As those who've played at photography know
> >>a secondary light source can add depth and complexity and
> >>at time clarity to an image.  It can hint and imply more)
> >>
> >>His work has a hint of melancholy and a touch of his personal
> >>worries.  Both add the flavor of the struggle of any seeker
> >>after what is "more."  It is smartly written and should serve to
> >>open the door to ZMM for those who are daunted by the work
> >>itself and yet it is a pleasant literary meditation on the familiar
> >>feel of the original journey for readers who've come to give a
> >>place in their heart to ZMM.
> >>
> >>There are technical points that may be arguable by folks
> >>who've spent years considering the whole-of-it, but just
> >>as good Jazz can evoke another piece of music in it's own
> >>terms, this book brings a fresh echo to recall the enduring
> >>original.
> >>
> >>thanks--mel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "MarshaV" <marshalz at charter.net>
> >>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> >>Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 2:27 AM
> >>Subject: Re: [MD] (no subject)
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > dmb,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the notification of this book.
> >> >
> >><snip>
> >>  Marsha
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > At 05:17 PM 9/11/2008, you wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >MOQers all:
> >> > >
> >> > >Mark Richardson's book was just launched. It just arrived in the
> >> > >mail today, so I haven't read "ZEN AND NOW: On the Trail of Robert
> >> > >Pirsig and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and can't yet say if
> >> > >it's any good or not. Still, it's exciting to see any book about
> >> > >Pirsig's work. Ian, Henry and this forum are mentioned by name.
> >> > >There is a website with a few photos, reviews and such.
> >>(www.zenandnow.org)
> >> > >
> >> > <snip>
> >> >dmb
> >>
> >>
> >>Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >>Archives:
> >>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
> > .
> > .
> >
> > Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the
> > stars.........
> > .
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Moq_Discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >
> >
> > End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 34, Issue 41
> > *******************************************
> >
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list