[MD] cloud of probability

[118]

Hi Dan,
We appear to be talking across each other.  This is probably my fault
since I must not be explaining myself very well.  I will try harder
below.

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone
>

>>>[Taken from ZMM passage on Gravity]
>>> ``Why does everybody believe in the law of gravity then?''
>>>
>>> ``Mass hypnosis. In a very orthodox form known as `education.'''
>>>
>>> Dan comments:
>>>
>>> Now, when we think of gravity (or the law of gravity, they're
>>> interchangeable) we tend to think of a physical process, which is what
>>> you seem to be doing. The meaning of the term "gravity" isn't you
>>> falling down when you trip, though. The meaning of gravity is all in
>>> your head. It is a ghost of reason. It is the result of your
>>> indoctrination, otherwise known as education, informing you on the
>>> nature of the world.
>>
>> [Mark]
>> Yes, gravity is a physical process.  Gravitation is a broader concept.
>
> Dan:
>
> You're missing the point... gravity and gravitation are ideas, not
> physical processes.

[Mark]
We could mince words here.  I understand what you are saying, I am
trying to speak beyond that.  When ever we converse using words, yes,
we point to ideas.  Now, perhaps there is something beyond the idea.
Let's just say that Gravitation (capital G) exists beyond ideas.  It
could resemble something completely different than what we have
construed with our simple intellect.  We, in essence have no idea what
Gravitation is.  We have some equations that try to confine such a
thing into the world of logic and semantics, but these are, of course,
inadequate.  In the same way we cannot say what Quality is (capital
Q), or even what an Apple is (capital A).  All we know is the
expression of these things, their appearance to us in this particular
configuration. The societal level provides the impetus for us to agree
on these things generally since the societal level is based around
groups of people.
>
> Mark:
>>  Gravity is to gravitation as revolt is to revolution.  I would agree
>> with you on the indoctrination part of it.  In my opinion, all of
>> static quality is from lengthy indoctrination in the West.  That is
>> why it is so hard to get away from it.  We are not informed on the
>> nature of the world, we are taught what others see it as.  This
>> particularly came to light in China, when there was a strict
>> re-education policy in place.  Russia did the same thing by rewriting
>> history.  Indeed, the same thing happens in the United States,
>> depending on who is in power.  There are more ghosts than just that of
>> Reason, and it is called a Church by RMP for a reason (no pun
>> intended).  The panick induced by yelling "Fire" is another type of
>> ghost.
>
> Dan:
>
> Last time I checked, China wasn't in the west though Russia was
> leaning that way. It doesn't matter where a person grows up... they
> are a product of their culture.

[Mark]
I was simply cautioning you of the evil of education when put in the
wrong hands.  My motto is to question everything, for, do we need
someone to tell us these things?
>
>>>Dan:
>>> What RMP is getting at in the passages above is that gravity isn't a
>>> physical process. Nor is Quality. The fact that we "know" all about
>>> Newton and gravity makes us very certain about the "external" world
>>> existing apart from our own self. And the MOQ says that the idea that
>>> the world exists is a high quality idea. But it is only an idea. There
>>> is no way to be certain that there really is a world "out there" apart
>>> from the self.
>>
>> [Mark]
>> I agree that Quality is not a process.  A world existing is more than
>> just a high quality idea, since it presents itself before ideas at the
>> pre-intellectual.
>
> Dan:
>
> No, no, no. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The world
> doesn't present itself before ideas. The world is an idea.

[Mark]
Dan you misunderstood me.  I meant that Quality presents itself before ideas.

You say The world is an idea.  It is quite clear from your posts, that
you are still stuck in the world of ideas.  I know that you do not
read much philosophy, but what you seem to be proposing is Plato's
philosophy of Ideas (or Form).  This is what Pirsig wanted to get away
from.  If you understood this, you would take it to the next level,
which you do not.  Pirsig himself does not remember much of what
happened and has to resort to notes written by himself before his
breakdown.  He now packages the enormity of what he discovered in
little stories and analogies, and brings in evolution and levels, all
which have nothing to do with what Quality is.  Quality is closer to
Tao than to western evolutionary theory.  That is just RMP's way to
present it to us.
>


>> [Mark]
>> There is the Quality that we speak of through words and ideas, and
>> there is Quality that presents those ideas.  I wouldn't go so far as
>> to say that the latter is a ghost.  The former is the ghost of the
>> latter.  For certainly for there to be a ghost, it must be a ghost of
>> something.
>
> Dan:
> Ideas ARE static quality intellectual patterns. To say Quality
> presents Quality is pure nonsense, Mark. You claim to have read ZMM 35
> years ago but so help me if I can tell. You seem to have no idea what
> RMP is on about.

[Mark]
I would have to ask you, why are there static intellectual patterns at
all?  What is beyond ideas that is not an idea.  This, I thought, was
provided by the term dynamic quality, but perhaps you see this
differently.

Yes, I have also read ZMM since, especially when I truly needed to.  I
went down the same path that Pirsig went down before he wrote ZMM.  I
know this, because I followed the same path that was set out in ZMM
towards the end to see where it would take me.  It left Pirsig sitting
on the floor and later carrying around a gun at times.  He could not
communicate with anybody, and was very confused most of the time.
Look it up if you do not believe me.  "Phaedrus" became a scary shadow
that he wanted to avoid.  Of course Phaedrus is simply his personality
before his shock treatment which created a new personality.  Although
he refers to Phaedrus in Lila, it is not the same Phaedrus, it is a
Classical Phaedrus, not a Romantic one.  The reason he wrote ZMM was
to convert a total breakdown into a spiritual awakening.  I think he
was successful. I also think he was confused by all the adulation and
forced to write a sequel.  Perhaps it got to his head, all that fame.
>
> I read it back in 1974 when it was first published. And I've re-read
> it quite a number of times, always getting something new out of it. It
> is such a powerful book, and the ideas presented in it are extremely
> difficult to grasp. I realize that. And perhaps my expectations exceed
> the gumption of many people. I love to read. I get started on a
> passage from ZMM or LILA and I just keep on reading.
>
> When I suggest to someone that they re-read the books I am not being
> arrogant. I am simply suggesting they do what I do so that perhaps we
> might meet on a level playing field.

[Mark]
I would suggest that you actually truly believe that Quality is real
rather than just talk about it.  I mean this most sincerely, it is not
a jibe and I am not being arrogant.  Quality is not found in the
words, you know this since it is not definable.  I will warn you, that
if you do go the way of Quality with a Western mind, it may get
treacherous.

I will try to join you on your playing field.  But please do not be
disturbed if sometimes I try to take you to my level.
>
>>Mark:
>> I am sure this is discussed in Lila's Child, and I will do a word search on it.
>
> Dan:
>
> I believe there is something there that points to the passage I quoted above.
>

[Mark]
Cheers, thanks for putting the effort into the book.

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
>