[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[Platt Holden]

Hi Mark

Not sure what you see as the problem. Quality is defined for rational 
metaphysical
purposes as direct experience prior to concepts. Quality need not be
analyzed any further than that. We witness entities at all levels responding 
to
"this better than that" without "thinking" of  any kind. My cat, UTOE, is a 
prime
example. He exhibits moral choices all day long without having a single 
symbol in
his furry head.

We can discuss Quality like we can discuss Beauty or Love until the
cows come home. I enjoy such discussions as much as anybody. But,
all the words in the world do not come close to the direct experience of
standing in front of Michangelo's "David" in Florence or being in head over
heels in love with another person.

Of course, you understand this without my saying it. I merely mention the
obvious to emphasize that while we enjoy our unique ability to engage in
thinking we should not forget that it's all just fingers pointing at the 
moon.
When it comes to really understanding something, intuition comes to the
rescue. For as Wittgenstein concluded, "Whereof one cannot speak, therefore
one must be silent." Trouble is, we humans can no more stop thinking than
breathing. That's when Zen training comes to the rescue.Or just listening
to Wagner.

Best,
Platt.
.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!


>> Hi Platt,
>> Thank you for your patient response.  I am here to discuss, not to 
>> dictate.
>>  I agree, one must have a concept in order to discuss anything.  Rational
>> thought is symbol manipulation.  Such symbols are also concepts.  I also
>> fully understand the ineffability of dynamic quality, and do not think 
>> that
>> such a thing is an insurmountable stumbling block.  I am not bashing 
>> dynamic
>> quality by any stretch of the imagination.
>>
>> All concepts require some kind of jump as to their acceptance.  We may 
>> not
>> realize this is what we are doing most of the time, due to 
>> indoctrination.
>>  But such is the nature of agreement.  Even Buddhist philosophy which is
>> considered highly intellectual requires heavy indoctrination.  This is 
>> not a
>> bad thing, since some concepts are not necessarily intuitive, and require
>> much thinking along the appropriate lines (or path).  Such thinking is
>> provided conceptually.  In the end, an awareness dawns that becomes
>> fulfilling.  Operating through that awareness can provide much meaning 
>> and
>> happiness.
>>
>> A rational inquiry into dynamic quality must go through this process. 
>> The
>> theistic camp often resorts (though lack of training, or for expediency) 
>> to
>> saying you just have to believe (become aware of) for conversion. 
>> However,
>> for those looking, there are plenty of rational arguments for the 
>> existence
>> of God, some based on paradoxes.  The point is, MOQ, (IMO) states that
>> rational arguments are needed to support the concept of dynamic quality.
>>  One must assemble this from all sides that can provide insight. 
>> Building a
>> metaphysics is not easy, and as Pirsig notes, such construction can be 
>> self
>> destructive due to the nature of such inquiry.
>>
>> Through such rational leading, the individual becomes aware of dynamic
>> quality, and the actual arguments do not matter so much once the switch 
>> is
>> flipped (if you will), unless, of course, he wants to convince another. 
>> In
>> my opinion, Phaedrus underwent a sudden epiphany and is trying to convert 
>> it
>> to words.  He does this remarkably well as is evidenced by the success of
>> ZMM.  Lila is more for those who have already got it.
>>
>> It is this awareness that we are after, getting there can be hard, but 
>> must
>> be supportive and not doctrinal.  Using analogies to other forms of 
>> thought
>> is appropriate if that helps create such awareness.  There are thousands
>> upon thousands of pages of Vedic thought.  These are metaphysical 
>> arguments.
>>  In the end however, one must bring in Gods.  The belief of such things 
>> is
>> arrived at through rational discussion, which becomes more abstract the
>> farther you get into it.  Once accepted, it becomes a whole different 
>> ball
>> game.
>>
>> To begin dynamic quality with the dictate that we cannot describe it, is,
>> in my opinion, not a very fruitful one.  There will not be many takers 
>> that
>> can accept such a thing in the same way that many do not subscribe to the
>> dictates of religion.  All of these are a search for a personally 
>> meaningful
>> reality.  Such a reality can be arrived at through rational persuasion.
>>  That is the nature of metaphysics, of all kinds.  Even Kierkegaard whom 
>> I
>> regard to be an amazing thinker understands that jumps are necessary. 
>> One
>> must prepare for the jump, however, and not be told to do so by a drill
>> sergeant.  Jumps happen spontaneously once the brain is ready.  Some get
>> there easier than others, some have more need than others. However, many 
>> of
>> us do not like being told what to think.
>>
>> Let me emphasize that this is not MOQ bashing, Quality was part of what
>> saved my life.  I arrived at it in the most desperate way.  This is also 
>> not
>> Pirsig bashing, the tools of metaphysics are what he uses.  It is simply 
>> an
>> opinion by one person who is interested in the spread of MOQ as a useful
>> metaphysics.  If one sees quality in everything, tolerance and 
>> appreciation
>> result.  It is a move away from negative thinking to one full of 
>> surprises
>> and miracles.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>