[MD] MOQ Recursion

[John Carl]

John butts in to the Arlo and Marsha show:


> [Marsha]
> > Yes, it denotes Reality = Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned
> experience).
>

John:

Marsha, m'dearie, does this statement equate to SQ or DQ?  I mean, for me,
it's something I've heard before, and because you've got a an undefined term
over a tautology - unpatterned experience is a non-existent and otoh, since
experience IS patterning...

But since it's a high Quality statement for you, I assume it's a High SQ
formulation.  What I'm wondering then, is if this high SQ is blocking any DQ
in your intellectual patterning, since you sorta default to it over and
over, like a programming bug or a clinging to the one felt and known and
trusted?



> >
> > [Arlo]
> > So there is "Quality", and then there is the "Metaphysics of Quality"
> which
> > describes Quality as being Reality. And yet you don't think this is a
> > "definition"?
>

John:

Hey Arlo.  I think the point could be made.  The problem with the word
"definition" is the limits it places.  It's a way of saying, here's the
limit.  So I don't see the MoQ as a definition, so much as a process of
defining, infinitely and creatively.  I don't think this is a "definition".



Arlo:


> > Also, is a "label" a static pattern of value? If not, what is it?
> According to
> > the Metaphysics of Quality, there is only DQ and SQ (static patterns of
> value),
> > if the Metaphysics of Quality is not a static pattern of value, and not
> Dynamic
> > Quality, you are introducing a new metaphysical aspect, "labels", that
> are
> > neither DQ nor SQ into the mix.
>

John:

An again, if fully fleshed out, a fully viable meta-twist.  "Labeling" is
synonomous with discriminating.  The process of discriminating is based upon
betterness.  Conceptualization IS Reality, you could make a pretty good
argument for that, I think.

But DQ and SQ have as their own metaphysical basis, the self-referential
fact of their own labelness.  And ... and... I don't wanna go there at the
mo'.  Having just got back from  re-creating and vacating.





> Marsha:
> For me the MoQ represents, denotes, signifies, Reality =
> Quality(unpatterned
> experience/patterned experience).
>
>

John:

Yes, and how does that make you feel?  Or to put it the way Ron, often does,
what good does it do? Where does this "represent" come in handy in the real
world?

That's what I'm always itching to know.  Pragmatic value.



> >
> > [Arlo previously]
> > Right, so you DO NOT think the "Metaphysics of Quality" is a definition
> or an
> > analysis at all?
> >
> > [Marsha]
> > Within the Intellectual Level it represents ZMM, LILA, Lila's Child, and
> all
> > interviews, dvds, letters, papers and discussions used to divide, define
> and
> > know it.
>


John:

I'd add one other factor.  It represents the listeners, as well as the
speaker.  There's an author, sure. But moreso than any other metaphysics or
philosophical movement, it is an avowedly open and invitational system.

I mean, it'd have been simple at any time in the history of the MoQ, for
Pirsig to just make it exactly according to plan.  Instead, Bob went a
different way.  Lila's child is explicitly, part of an MoQ that includes the
reader, the interpreter as part of the dialogic process and that's... unique
I think in the field of lonely philosophers on their mountain tops with
quills in hand.



>
> > [Arlo]
> > What you are describing are things to divide, define and know Quality. Of
> these
> > things, Pirsig's metaphysics is one.
> >
> > In other words, the "Metaphysics of Quality" is an attempt to divide,
> define
> > and know Quality.
> >
> > Remember the "it's all just an analogy" in ZMM. Do you not think that the
> > "Metaphysics of Quality" is one such analogy used to talk about Quality?
> >
> > You really seem to confuse the undefinable (Quality) with Pirsig's
> attempt at a
> > definition (the Metaphysics of Quality).
>
> Marsha:
> For me, once the defining and analysis has started the 'MoQ' has dropped
> into
> the Intellectual Level where it represents ZMM, LILA, Lila's Child, and all
> interviews, letters, dvds, papers and discussions used to divide, define
> and
> know it.
>

John:

Well we're rubbing up against my old problem with "the intellectual level"
again.  Because the way you people have got the "intellectual level" in a
rationalistic and classically oriented box, you completely do away with the
better half of human mental ability.  The romantic side, the artistic side.

These two sides have to be united, or the whole thing doesn't work.  It's
very low quality to suffer under either ugly science or art that doesn't
make any sense.

I can understand why some people feel like giving up.  I'm going to try and
make a sensible argument why they shouldn't.  A hard task, but hey, if I'm
gonna take on the label, better put on the shoes.


> [Marsha]
> > Your label is Arlo.  My label is Marsha.
>


Mine is John the Idealist.  Always glad to greet you.