[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy

[MarshaV]

At 08:56 PM 2/19/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Hello again Marsha:
>
>
>
>I'm sorry to be so slow at responding; blame it on the Canadian cold
>weather.


Greetings David,

No problem, the North wind doth blow.

Your questions are brighter than my answers.



>
>
>David:
>
>For the record the computer metaphor I speak of is found at pages 150 - 152
>of Lila. When will someone publish indexed versions of ZAMM and Lila? The
>underlined words in the above passage quoted by Bo are what I think he and I
>see as false. Pirsig is trying to make the point that the four levels of
>spovs are independent of each other. I'm not sure I'm right but it seems
>that he believes in some kind of alternate mental universe that exists in
>parallel with our universe. He's in good company: Plato, Augustus and
>Descartes to name a few, but just because he can't see the physical
>connection between the top three levels doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
>Perhaps this is wrong but I don't think anyone has a problem seeing the
>direct connection between the inorganic and biological level spovs. But for
>some reason they miss the connection between the biological, social and
>intellectual levels.
>
>
>
>One example given by Pirsig to illustrate the independence of these levels
>is suicide, which is supposed to represent a conflict between the biological
>and intellectual levels. However in a non-mental (strictly physical)
>universe, intellect is a biological function like breathing or digestion. So
>suicide is a bunch of brain cells trying to impose their will to cut a bunch
>of wrist cells and the conflict is biology vs biology not intellect vs
>biology.
>
>
>
>I think he believes in a mental universe because at the bottom of page 151
>he says:
>
>       "Certainly the novel cannot exist in the computer without a parallel
>pattern of voltages to support it. But that does not mean that the novel is
>an expression or property of those voltages. It doesn't have to exit in any
>electronic circuits at all. It can also reside in magnetic domains on a disk
>of a drum or a tape, but again it is not composed of magnetic domains nor is
>it possessed by them. It can reside in a notebook but it is not composed of
>or possessed by the ink and paper. It can reside in the brain of a
>programmer, but even here it is neither composed of this brain nor possessed
>by it."
>
>
>
>
>
>The root of the fallacy is his failure to realize that the novel only exists
>physically in the brains of the writer and readers. The pattern of voltages,
>magnetic domains and ink and paper representations of the novel are only
>symbols and have no meaning until a living brain decodes them. It may seem a
>small point and is certainly open to question and argument but it has
>implications for the MoQ in that it might ultimately (horror of horrors)
>define DQ.

'Physically' is a static pattern of value.



>
>
>
>
>
>
>Marsha responded:
>
>I had my computer training at a technical college, I understand
>
> >on & off switches and machine language.  Cobol was my language of poetry,
>
> >but I debugged many a program reading computer dumps and seeking out
>
> >what was in a particular register and location.
>
>
>
>
>
>David:
>
>You are in a unique position to realize the relationship between the levels
>of symbol used in a computer. I was tipped off by my late brother who could
>code in binary the way most of us write in words. But here I'm interested in
>the final conversion where the light energy from a screen or reflected light
>from the page physically enters the eyes and by the machinations of the mind
>becomes meaning.

There are conventional, scientific static patterns of value to 
explain this.  Are you unhappy with them?


>
>
>
>
>Marsha:
>
> >Thank you for the opportunity to read this portion of Lila
>
> >again.   They are important pages.
>
> >
>
> >First lets agree we're ignoring the nature of the patterns and we're
>
> >going to talk about the referents: brains, novels, individual,
>
> >voltages, ink, paper, the MOQ levels, and the relationship between
>
> >them.  Right?
>
>
>
>David:
>
>I'm good.
>
>
>
>Marsha:
>
>  -  I understand the static world of patterns and levels
>
> >to represent the Buddhist concept of conventional reality, the human
>
> >sandbox.
>
>
>
>David:
>
>A question, are you talking about the sand sorting metaphor for the world in
>ZAMM or should I be reading something on Buddhist cosmology? If so, can you
>recommend something simple?

I like the equivalency of sorting sand and Buddhist cosmology.  I can 
see it as a painting.  Simple is a relative term.  Any little 
treatise on emptiness might be helpful.  My first exposure was 'The 
Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's 
Mulamadhyamakakarika by Nagarjuna and Jay L. Garfield.'   It made my 
head spin.



> >
>
>Marsha:
>
> >The individual is an ever-changing, collection of interrelated and
>
> >interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static
>
> >patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
>
>
>
>David:
>
>Absolutely! Are you reading my mind?
>
>
>
>Marsha:
>
>   The different
>
> >'individual' collections of patterns are as alike as snowflakes.
>
> >
>
> >On the few pages sited, there are a number of different problems
>
> >discussed.  Are you specifically addressing the fact that a pattern,
>
> >its function, is discreet to its level, but required all underlying
>
> >levels for its evolution?
>
>
>
>David:
>
>No I hadn't considered that incongruent. Is there something special about
>it?
>
>
>
>
>
>Marsha:
>
>    A brain to me is a biological
>
> >pattern.  I do not equate brain and mind.  Do you see it differently?
>
>
>
>David:
>
>Agreed, brain is a biological spov.
>
>Agreed, brain and mind are not equal, but the way I see it brain is the
>largest organ in the set of organs that make up the mind. I agree with
>Epicurus, "The soul doesn't see through the eye, as through a window. If
>that were so the soul would see better without the eye. It is the eye itself
>that sees."
>
>The way I see it the sense organs are the parts of the mind that experience
>DQ. In my way of seeing things mind and body are with minor exceptions
>synonymous.
>
>
>
>Marsha:
>
> >Where, specifically is your discomfort?
>
>
>
>David:
>
>Pirsig seems to be saying that novels don't physically exist, that it's an
>intellectual idea. Poof, it's here and poof, it's gone. Well, my problem
>with that is that eventually something has to push something. Ideas have to
>be physical if they're going to affect behaviour.  Ideas have to be physical
>if they're going to push muscles. No one is buying Descartes' idea that the
>pineal gland allows mental to affect physical anymore.

Do ideas have to become physical?  What does that mean?



>
>
>Marsha:
>
>I think science is in the room.
>
>
>
> > Hmmm.  If I'm correct, and science is in the room, let me add a word or
>two.
>
>
>
>The MoQ, for me, is a world-view to which science is subordinate.  Science
>is a subject/object subset of the MoQ world-view and cannot be used to
>evaluate or explain it.
>
>
>
> >
>
>David:
>
>Not physics; metaphysics. My question to you, Bo, Ham and anyone is, is
>Quality physical? Forget S/OM and especially subjects, science demands a
>strictly objective metaphysics. Is the MoQ that metaphysics? I think you and
>your associates are the people to chew this idea over with. -david swift


What if science were to demand something different?

Quality physical?
                             Can't
                              say.

                              Do
                              not
                              know
                              and
                              do
                              not not
                              know.

                              Mu.



moooo,
  Marsha





>

.
_____________

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