[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[118]

Hi Andre,
Thanks for responding.  As you may have intuited my post to you was in
the same attitude that yours was to Ham.  An arrogant and unabashed
dismissiveness of somebody else's attempt to contribute to this forum.
 I am not sure who you are, or if you have ever contributed to this
forum before; many people could use your name, and you could be
contributing under several names for all I know.  So, based on your
recent post, and this one, I still believe that you do not know
anything about MoQ.  That is, of course, simply my perception based on
what you wrote.  I have some comments below.

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Andre:
> Nice one Mark. Reminds me of a quote I once read in an important book. On
> Jan 24 you said to Marsha: 'Let's tie Quality down like a tethered hot air
> balloon.  Must be possible'
>
> The quote I am referring to is in ZMM (of course):
>
> 'It wasn't any particular point of view that outraged him so much as the
> idea that Quality should be subordinated to ANY point of view. The
> intellectual process was forcing Quality into its servitude, prostituting
> it. I think that was the source of his anger. (p 207)
>
> There is a nice saying which goes something like 'the past is pregnant with
> the future' (in this sense I am indeed 'past-tense') and 'the future is
> pregnant with the past' ( many that say to me 'step into what is happening'
> I have found to be actually stepping into the past (SOM).

[Mark]
You seem infatuated with this thing called SOM.  I guess you have a
good idea what it is to you.  However, when you project your own
perception onto someone else, I get lost and think that you may be
talking to yourself.  So, if you are stepping into the past with SOM,
then more power to you.  When you claim that somebody else feeling the
same way as you do, you have no idea what you are talking about.

We do not prostitute Quality.  We discuss it.  If you choose not to
discuss it, then you are in the wrong forum.  Again, you are
projecting your own fears onto others.  By discussing Quality, we are
not worshipping the discussion.  We are exchanging views.  This is
common in a forum such as this.  If you don't like somebody's opinion,
then you can certainly present reasons why.  There is a difference
between saying that Quality has a confining definition, and exchanging
views.  I believe that Pirsig was railing against those in academia
who have succumbed to thinking that they are leaders that others must
listen to, because they are so very right.  This righteousness is not
uncommon in academia.
>
> Mark:
> Ham has provided input which has enabled greater progress in MoQ than any
> that has been posted in the last three years.
>
> Andre:
> Ham is harmless but he is SOM all the way.

[Mark]
No, you are SOM the whole way in your interpretation of what Ham is
posting.  Ham is creative, I have not seen that coming from you.
Creativity is one of the hallmarks of Quality.  Again, you may not
choose to see it that way.  However, it seems that you would rather
not talk about Quality in the fears that something bad will happen.
These are your demons.  Now, by using the word harmless, it sounds to
me like you are protecting something.  What, exactly, are you
protecting from harm?  Does this have something to do with what you
think MoQ is, and cannot be otherwise?
>
> Mark:
> In terms of your claim that Quality does not act on anything.  You will
> notice that my statement was that Nature is Quality in action.
>
> Andre:
> This may be so Mark. I took your 'Quality in action' to mean a similar
> understanding to 'producing' something which implies that Dynamic Quality is
> a part of a cause and effect system. Since all cause and effect systems are
> part of static patterns Quality cannot be part of these.(see Annotn 56)
> Perhaps I misunderstood your intention.

[Mark]
Hmmm...  Do you actually know what you are talking about?  Are you
saying that static patterns are not part of Quality?  Is Quality
something that avoids static patterns then?  What exactly are you
saying?  Are you creating a world that has Quality AND something else?
 You can quote Annotn 56 all you want, but if you are using this as a
truth, then you are far away from the Metaphysics of Quality.  I
suggest you read the last part of ZMM again.  Any annotation cannot be
used to prove what Quality is or is not.  Proofs are irrelevant.  You
should know better than that.
>
> Mark (in response to my assertion that Quality has no source):
>
> Well indeed Andre, now that was illuminating.  The truth is, that you have
> no idea of the MoQ, None.  I would be happy if you could show me some
> indication to the contrary.  How about a paragraph on what MoQ really is?
>  Sure, I dare you.  I won't hold my breath.
>
> Andre:
> No, do not hold it. If you are impressed with Ham's conclusion (as you
> clearly are, given your observation) that the MOQ has no basis whatsoever
> unless it finds some sort of source for Quality  (which has been his
> hang-up, hang-on for I do not know how many years), you have no idea about
> the basic premiss of the MOQ. It's as simple as this.

[Mark]
I have to say that I am much more impressed with Ham's attempts to
explain his view than I am yours.  In fact, yours are non-existent.  I
would again have to say that you have no idea what the basic premiss
of the MoQ is.  You have no supporting evidence that is written in
real time, and simply must resort to a bible of some sort or another.
That is indeed very low Quality, and does MoQ a disservice.  Think
before you write.  I personally do not think that Quality is served by
saying it has a source, but rhetoric can easily be used to describe it
in such a way.  Remember, it is the quality of discourse, not the
truth about anything.
>
> Mark:
> Oh, and by the way, if you want to quote something out of Lila just to show
> how truthful you are, you are on the wrong path.If you support your truth
> with an imaginary truth, you are left on shifting sands.  There is no
> Quality there, or in your recent post.
>
> Andre:
> You may be pleased to know that I do not defend many things I have not
> directly experienced Mark. Just intellectualizing about all this stuff has
> its drawbacks. Read Finnegan's Wake? James Joyce is difficult and wonderful
> at the same time. What point are you trying to make? I am reasonable
> pragmatist.

[Mark]
Your claim is that by reading the literature of Pirsig, all will be
revealed.  I heard somebody say that about the Bible.  What I am
saying is that by reading those books that I suggested, all about MoQ
will also be revealed.  It is not confined to sacred texts.  It is all
around us.  You seem to ascribe to a very narrow view, and in that way
you are prostituting Quality.  If intellectualizing has its drawbacks,
then you have no faith in Quality.
>
> And to make something very clear: I do not know anything about Quality. I am
> just glad it is. I do understand a bit of the MOQ though.

[Mark]
Well I suppose you can say anything you want.  We all know what
Quality is (except maybe Andre).  Open your eyes, it is not hard to
see.  You seem to be stuck on the first line of the Tao Te Ching.
"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao".  Yes, we all get
that, get over it.  You will find, however, that the rest of the book
goes on to describe aspects of the Tao (or the Way).  Yes, Quality can
be described as a Way, no doubt about it.  As such, it can be useful
to have an internal map.

Now, MoQ is the metaphysics of something right?  That something is
Quality.  So, if you are discussing MoQ, you are discussing Quality.
Perhaps you thought you were discussing zebra's, well, I am here to
set you straight.  If you do not know anything about Quality, then how
do you participate in a metaphysics of such a concept?  Your statement
just leads me to believe, again, that you don't know MoQ.

When we say that we know something, we are providing descriptions of
what that thing appears to be.  So, the statement becomes "know
about".  This is the teleology of linguistics.  I can say that I know
about a table, it is a plane of wood supported by four legs.  In this
case all I have done is replace the word table with a bunch of other
words.  For whatever reason, we call that knowing about.  We can never
know a table, only know what its impact on us is.  In the same way, we
discuss Quality in terms of its appearance to us.  There is nothing
blasphemous about this.  It does not diminish Quality unless we think
that words destroy.  They are just words.  Many religions have a
dictate that one should not worship false idols.  This may be what you
are worried about, worshipping words.  This doesn't happen if you have
a perspective of Quality.  So, go ahead, jump in, the water is warm.

Cheers,
Mark
>
>
>
> 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
>