[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

Tue Nov 9 09:00:10 PST 2010

Hi Mark,

Seeking understanding by asking questions is admirable. But, my point is
that some things "passeth understanding." Some questions simply cannot be
answered by the static distinctions necessary for thought. All one can say,
like the Buddha, is, "See for yourself." Once you intuitively accept as 
reality
that "some things are better than others," the rest of discussion about the
meaning of Quality gets all tangled up in intellectual relationships, fun to
kick around among friends but in the end, "Full of fury, signifying 
nothing."

Once I was in a group discussing the meaning of life. After I had held forth
for awhile complaining about how I didn't understand how life could have
any meaning since we are born, work like hell and then die, someone simply
replied, "But, you do understand." That shut me up for I suddenly realized
the meaning of life was the very discussion we were having, that is, the
experience itself

No matter how hard we try, Quality per se is impossible to describe. It's 
the
nature of language to make distinctions and erect boundaries between this 
and
that. Quality, preceding thought, is both this and that simultaneously.

Best,
Platt

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

> 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
>>
> 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 