[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

John, Mark
success on one part,
Tim

[From a discussion between John and Mark]

> 
>[Mark]  I distinguish between Value and Quality.  Quality exists, it is what differentiates.  We create value.  But, of course this could also go on forever.
> >
> 
> 
> [John] Well I distinguish between them too.  But absolutely more simplistically
> than you (big surprise!)  Value is the line and Quality is the direction
> on the line.  You can have a bad or negative value, but Quality is the good,
> that's how I use, those two terms.  And when we talk about value being
> the fundament of existence, I believe we are just starting down the path to
> the MoQ.   Many metaphysical systems begins with this understanding and
> insight.  The fall under the generic name of Idealism.
> 
> My idea of the MoQ is that  Quality is the direction, not the line.  That
> the MoQ has something relevant to say about the fundamental existence of
> betterness - not "line-ness".   I believe that this is the properly
> Pirsigian interpretation, too.  Somethings I think we differ on, but not
> this one.  This one, I differ with dave.  When I first asked the
> question, Platt agreed with me, dmb says its all about the line-ness, and nobody
> else had an opinion, that I noticed and it comes up now and then, but nobody
> really wants to discuss it, that I notice.  A lot escapes my notice!

[Tim]
John, I think this is the first time in this thread that someone
addressed the main reason I posted it!!!  As I recall, my question was,
something like: is Quality too simple a foundation for a metaphysics? 
Or, mustn't Quality be complex, and not simple as asserted by RMP?

I still don't know if I can say, perhaps the existence of many I's is
sufficient.  Perhaps, due to dynamics, and the fact that every 'I' is at
a different place, could provide for the conflicting perspectives on
Quality...

Anyway, John, if Quality is the direction, what produces the line?  This
is why I think your perspective may not be RMP's.  Either way, I'm not
here to defend RMP.  Here, my thoughts drift back to the reply I just
made to what Ham congratulated us about: morality, I'ness, and teh fact
taht some people choose to believe that they have no choice, that they
are automatons.  There is the possibility that Quality runs through
everything and every choice, even Hitler, is Quality.  I think this is
RMP's perspective.  In this sense, I think it is the line.  However,
implicit in the Quality-line (and I don't know how well I am using this
analogy) is the distinction between high and low, betterness.  So, in
this sense, Quality is the direction.  Anyway, I guess this hints at why
I thought that the metaphysical fundament had to be complex, and not
simple.


> [John]  I wouldn't mind going on forever...

[Tim]
really?  seems like hell to me!  But, I am feeling a bit pessimistic and
low on imagination.


> >[Mark] So, how about this?  Quality pulls value from us.  It creates the choices.
> >
> 

>[John] Well, "pulling value from us" sounds like taking choice away, to me.  I
> do think of Quality having a "pull", but it is very, very subtle, in my
> experience.  You know it when you see it, that is for sure.  But very
> often, you don't see it and that's for the simple reason that it just isn't
> there. Sometimes there is no Quality choice.  But there's still choice.

[Tim]
Personally, I have an antipathy to the word 'value', like, god, heaven,
hell, divine purpose, etc.  However, maybe I can unite these thoughts
anyway.  I have said that I believe that something-is must be; and that
it is bounded by the impossible.  Every 'I' exists within something-is,
that is, confined to the possible.  So, in the utter present of DQ, I
see (not that I see) the fullness of what is (currently) possible.  Our
choice is to put a further boundary within that possible.  So, if, in
the utter present, I can think of Quality (as the 'line' itself) as
being the full potential of the currently possible, I can, perhaps,
settle Mark's idea that 'Quality pulls value (our particular choice)
from us', while at the same time settling John's problem that this is
'taking choice away', because it is only taking away what is truly
impossible - one of which is to refrain from any choice what-so-ever;
time forces some choice every moment (thus pulls value from us).

secondly, if it is true that Quality is teh metaphysical fundament, and
that it cannot offer anti-Quality, then, technically, there is always a
Quality possibility (even if there is only one possibility, and thus no
choice - though I doubt that is possible), no matter how low.  And then,
I think, John's "Pull", would be, perhaps, like my conscience, which
'pulls' me toward choosing the higher quality options.  In this sense
then, to the extent that there is a best (which, even if it is not an
objective best, is such that an 'I' can still say 'I did my best', which
I think is more important), those from the automaton camp are not
entirely unwarranted! The choice of the 'I' is not so much creative, as
submissive: to the highest quality possibility - and the aligning one's
self with it.

but, to be sure, the unknown that must always come up in the utter
present of DQ should dash any thoughts that the 'I' is an automaton, or
that the highest quality, submissive 'I' would render himself sterile,
etc.

> 
>[John] However, one thing I'm very sure of, when there is no choice, there is no
> Quality. This does put me in a quandry to explain choice at the quantuum
> level, which I will do, if pressed to.  (that's more a theat, than a
> promise
> :-)

[Tim]
press!

>[John] Does that make choice, more fundamental than Quality?  I'm not sure.

[Tim]
I see, this is where the question of line or direction plays out.
 


> > [Mark] One could say that the "I" is a quality decision.
> >  That is the choice creates the "I".
> 
> 
> 
>[John] Well, that's where my head is at. [SNIP]
> But yup, I think the faithful-I is  a Quality decision, in every way.
> Psychologically, Ontologically and Epistemologically.  If I'm missing
> any,
> let me know.

[Tim]
Let me think over this.  BUt, for now, John, I don't know if you saw
that I was thinking that there had to be something on the other side of
the faithful-I, (this side was the mental- and material- I's, and the
other involves and I-as-idea and a boundary-I amidst other
I's-as-idea.);  I am far from settled on any of this.  But, the
faithful-I would be a quality decision, and the pinnacle and unifier of
I'ness in the living I, but I think that there might have to be a more
humble, more fundamental, less choose-able, 'I' as-idea...


> >[Mark]  Trying to nail these things down is
> > the problem.  Jesus died for your sins, have you forgotten?  This last one
> > was tongue in cheek, of course (or was it?).
> >
> >
> [John] Your guess is better than mine.  Personally, I don't think about my sins
> much, and often wonder a bit about people who do.  One other good reason
> to avoid churches cuz they are FULL of people just absolutely obsessing over
> their sins.  Really does make you wonder what the hell they think they're
> doing there.
> 

[Tim]
really, John?

I do think about my 'sins' - the willful choosing of low quality options
when I know that I should choose what I believe to be a higher quality
option.  This is an important driving force for helping me to choose the
higher quality option.  The difference between the quality I experience
when I choose high quality versus low quality.

regarding churches though, I see a very infuriating aspect to the
institutionalization of certain doctrines.  I see that ossified
religions have, as their most triumphal accomplishment, convinced their
followers that that high quality pull is evil, and that there is some
other metaphysical fundament - in this case, for instance, the
perfection of the bible - to which submission must be paid.  What this
does is influence people to choose to avoid doing their best, and this
leaves them feeling like great sinners, but thinking that they are
following the most intelligent ideas of the experts, to whom they have
submitted (rather than the direct pull of Quality), and so a focus on
sin rather than Quality is to be expected.

But still, I think 'sin', and 'forgiveness' are extremely important
concepts within the MoQ.

Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin