[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[118]

Hi Platt,

I suppose the problem lies within the stated limitation of what we can use
to discuss dynamic quality.  I am certainly not proposing to define dynamic
quality or Quality, that would be like defining God.  The use that I make of
this forum is to ask questions in order to understand.  When I am met with a
response such as "that is not relevant, you do not understand, now go away",
I do not find this productive in any way.  Of course I do not have full
understanding, that is why I ask questions.  My most recent question has
been, what is meant by keeping dynamic quality concept free.  I do not know
how to explain it any better.  From your examples, it appears that I have
not explained my self well enough, but I have little to go from based on the
posts from Dave, so do not know where more explanation is needed.

I do follow the question up with my opinion on such dismissal of rational
thought from dynamic quality because that is the way I understand the
proposed concept free statement.  I am met with no explanation, only some
misguided hostility.  We are all capable of further understanding, that is
all I am seeking.  The use of concepts to impart meaning to dynamic quality
without caging it in, is one such method.  I have never wanted to describe
the moon.

If we didn't know what Beauty was then a discussion would be appropriate.
 Your example does not fit for MOQ, however.  I do see interpretations being
presented and discussed in a way that indicates a disagreement on what
Quality is.  I also note that there are quotes from the books which are used
as proof.  Using quotes is indeed appropriate since we are discussing MOQ as
originally proposed by RMP.  I am sure I can find a quote in ZMM to support
a number of contentions.  As such, the use of quotes is open to discussion,
and does not represent dogma.   I wouldn't think the Pirsig would say it is
all done and finished.

A major effort still needs to be put into its interpretation so that others
can gravitate to it.  This was effective in the success of ZMM but not in
Lila.  It is not easily comprehended, although, I know that many on this
post do comprehend it.  I can also claim to understand it, but my
understanding comes more from ZMM.  It cannot stay as something for the
elite.  I believe it has more importance than that.  That is the purpose of
my conceptualization in terms of metaphors.

I believe the more fingers that are pointing to the moon the more easy it is
to triangulate, if you want to use that concept.  We can explain it as "use
your intuition" but as such it does not form a metaphysics, and is more like
providing a freedom to move about the cabin.  Metaphysics must encapsulate
do to its nature.  To leave it wide open does not provide much meaning.  I
know that Pirsig rages against such definitions but he chose to present in
the forum of metaphysics.

 Again, I am not being hostile, never have been with my questions.  If there
is any direct hostility or exasperation, I can say that it has been
provoked.  Lately I have learned that it leads nowhere, and realize I am
half the equation.  So, I do not have a problem, I have legitimate
questions.  One can answer them or not, what is not productive is hostile
dismissiveness.  I may not be the only one with the question.  I hope this
makes sense.

Is it appropriate to use concepts when discussing dynamic quality?  If not,
please explain in a way that does not include that such a thing cannot be
fully conceptualized because it diminishes it.  I have always understood
that loud and clear.  Like I have said, MOQ is not alone in this, in fact
such reasoning includes everything imaginable.  If you can find something
that can be explained beyond mere description and agreement, tell me.
 Everything is discussed with this shortcoming, such dialogues are
fabrications, they have to be.  To think otherwise may be delusional.
 Delusion is good however, it provides meaning.

Cheers,
Mark

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.
> .
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>