[MD] Changes in 2011

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Andre,


> Tim
> RMP himself has admitted that 'you never get it right', so I fail to see
> how that AIM would be a reasonable one.
> 
> Andre:
> Are you suggesting that the aim of this MD, to discuss Pirsig's 
> metaphysics of Quality, is an unreasonable one? Should we just forget
> about discussing Pirsig's metaphysics because 'you never get it right'?

[Tim]
there are two different things here.  To your first sentence, in short
yes; but 'aim' is the key word and I don't think you are considering it
properly.  To your second sentence, in short, no.  The difference is
AIM.  Aiming to discuss Pirsig's metaphysics of Quality is a terrible
idea.  Aiming to improve your intellectual level static patterns is a
great Idea.  I am here because I think RMP was so close to Quality.  But
I recognize that he isn't perfect; and it is a great thing that he
admitted so much for us.  So, to sum, AIM for quality, rather, morality.
 Regarding intellectual development, if you keep your sight set on
Pirsig's Quality, you will not be too far off --- but leave some room
for error and the unknown.  Humility.


> 
> Andre:
> I honestly did not expect ridicule to come from you Tim. I am not talking
> about the universe nor am I talking about the 'reason for all existence'.
> I am talking about what we, as a community of interested persons, are
> here for on this MD.

[Tim]
Andre, my point is this.  What if you should come to fully understand
Quality?  What if your hopes of progress in these lines comes to
fruition?  What then?

I am just suggesting that you shouldn't put off the 'what then?' until
then.  You should try to be there now, always, and fill out intellectual
Quality as the circumstances permit.

> 
> Tim:
> How is it*reasonable*  in the light of DQ even to have such intellectual
> discussions about metaphysics, Andre?
> 
> Andre:
> Pirsig has made it abundantly clear that his MOQ is a static intellectual
> pattern of value. Metaphysics is something you can talk about.

[Tim]
please consider my above and let me know if it changes your perspective.


> 
> Tim:
> again, I think you have missed the point of Quality.
> 
> Andre:
> Do you know 'the point' of Quality??

[Tim]
'know': no?  But, by faithe (and humility), I am quite confident.

> 
> Tim:
> bunk!  the center of MD is Horse.
> 
> Andre:
> Hmmm, I think Horse will giggle at this.

[Tim]
:)

> 
> Tim:
> intellectual reasonableness... discussion... nothing.  Quality.  then
> maybe we can recover some intellectual reasonableness, and discussion.
> Just like RMP found that to get past the SOM he had to jump outside the
> box, if you want to find Quality I suggest you jump outside the box of
> your intellectual discussions.
> 
> Andre:
> I find this observation truly remarkable. What are you doing on a site
> like this discussing the static intellectual pattern of Quality Tim?
> Where are you?

[Tim]
Yes.  Exactly!

Andre, intelligence... reasonableness... these are very fickle.  Quality
is beyond a full explication.  Knowledge is forever shrouded in the
unknown (so it seems).  Improving my intellectual level static patterns
seems a high quality thing to do, as conditions permit.  But I have no
god given objective criteria for saying what is success.  Since it is
always amidst the unknown, confidence only comes by faithe.

So, I am here pursuing dynamic quality.  it seems better to me than the
other things I might be doing.  It seems better to me than the things I
was normally doing before I joined the forum.  But I will not betray my
best estimate as to what is the best choice vis-a-vis dynamic quality,
even here, because we are hoping to improve intellectual static
patterns.

sincerely,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service