[MD] The Quest for Quality

[MarshaV]

At 02:36 PM 9/15/2008, you wrote:

>[Marsha] --
>
>
>>The patterned distribution of static quality or Quality?  Static 
>>quality is definition.  Quality is beyond definition,  at least 
>>that is my understanding.  The terms 'primary' and 'first cause' both
>>are definition making them static.  It seems to me that you are
>>trying to reify Quality.
>>
>>Interrelated causes and multiple conditions.  How can these be
>>tracked?
>>
>>While I think there is something in your theory that explains, to 
>>some extent, the conceptualization process, most of it makes no
>>sense to me.  Thanks for the response, but the reification of 
>>Quality is a no-no.
>
>You forced me to look up "reify" which, I confess, is not in my 
>vocabulary. Webster's says it is "to regard something abstract as a 
>material thing." Now, I don't know how you Pirsigians get from 
>"pure" Quality to material entities, but from what I've seen here, 
>an entity (thing) is a pattern. Even the self, you've said, is a 
>"collection of patterns".  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would 
>seem that reality is supposed to be "unpatterned" quality (DQ), and 
>finite entities are "patterned" quality (SQ).

I would state it like this:  Experience (reality) is "unpatterned" 
quality (DQ), and  "patterned" quality (SQ).




>Interrelated causes are intellectually perceived S-O creations.  The 
>cause of an egg is the hen that lays it; the cause of a broken egg 
>is the hammer that smashes it, etc.

An egg is produced from interrelated causes and multiple 
conditions.  Same to produce a broken egg.



>Such events relate to the differentiated universe of human 
>experience which attributes all phenomena to causal forces.

Direct causation has vaporized.



>Perhaps that's reification, but I see it as the objectivist precept 
>that all events have an antecedent cause, except for the first event 
>(Big Bang?) which, according to the objectivists, occurred 
>spontaneously.   Neither the essentialist nor the MoQist believes 
>that the essence of reality is substantive matter; in fact, we are 
>both phenomenalists who believe that material reality is an 
>experiential construct of Value or Quality.
>
>So what's your beef about my statement, Marsha?

My beef is your insinuation that Quality, which is beyond definition, 
needs to be associated with words like:  primary, first, or 
purpose.  To call Quality the primary source is an attempt to make it 
static, turn it into a static pattern of value.  You go to far.


Marsha






.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.