[MD] MOQ Recursion

[MarshaV]

Et tu Brutus? 

On Aug 5, 2010, at 2:22 PM, John Carl wrote:

> 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...

Marsha:
Not so, but there is no way to demonstrate this.  I can only state there are 
techniques one can use, meditation for instance, but there are others.  It is 
best discovered first-hand.  


> 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?

Marsha:
l imagine this last bit makes sense to you, but it doesn't to me.  I certainly can 
get into the MoQ as intellectual volleyball, but that will not be the same as 
"unpatterned experience/patterned experience", not even close.   



>>> [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?

Marsha:
Find out for yourself, John.   You once told me you were a totally 
rationally-based person.  So was the question of feelings addressed to 
me because you project me as a mommy?  And could you handle any kind 
of explanation beyond rationality according to your own self-description?   


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


Marsha:
Lots of pragmatic value, but you will need to experience it for yourself.  



>>> [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.

Marsha:
Okay.    




>>> [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.

Marsha:
What's this "you people"?   "I" don't have anything mixed up.  


> 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.

Marsha:
I don't see things as you have them divided.    



> 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.

I've never seen Little Shop of Horrors or the GaGa girl.    



>> [Marsha]
>>> Your label is Arlo.  My label is Marsha.
>> 
> 
> 
> Mine is John the Idealist.  Always glad to greet you.


This is for you John.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmhP1RgbrrY   



Marsha 

 
___