[MD] MOQ and Completeness Theories (Sorry, Godel.)

[Arlo Bensinger]

[John]
Think of it this way, Arlo, from our perspective on this planet, the 
whole universe is rapidly expanding away from us.  Now is that some 
weird sort of cosmic coincidence, or a value-orientation of necessity?

[Arlo]
I think many people find value in the notion that the entirety of the 
cosmos exists solely for them, that everything and everyone that has 
ever existed was part of a divine plan to produce *them*. I don't 
discount this, and I understand the impetus. If someone has to think 
the universe's expansion is orchestrated for their benefit, then I 
doubt any argument can convince them otherwise. And I think it is the 
people who have this need who struggle to turn Quality into a God.

[Arlo previously]
Since [Calvin] exists, the "logic" goes, it must be that everything 
happened with the goal of producing his existence.

[John]
Exactly!  You got my point.

[Arlo]
The problem is, such a view removes agency (or "free will") from 
existence, well for everything and everyone up to *you*. It might be 
comforting to look backwards and think the line you see means that 
everything that occurred from the first atomic reaction to being 
conceived by your parents was all "ordered" or "manipulated" by a 
cosmic hand interested only in producing you, but when your children 
start to think the same thing, you move from being the agenic 
pinnacle of the cosmos to just another cog in the wheel along the 
path the hand made to make your kid.

We are moving into a new topic here, so if you want to pursue this 
maybe we should start a new thread?

[John]
I keep describing the common sense of terms and usage that we both 
understand and you keep evading the thrust of my meaning by saying in 
effect "but the MoQ defines these things differently".  I just don't 
think that's a fruitful direction for dialogue.

[Arlo]
Your mistake is assuming the "common sense of terms" is static and 
unchanging. What you now consider the "common sense" understanding of 
these terms would be quite different from how these terms were used a 
hundred, two hundred, or even more years ago.

Remember in ZMM Pirsig mentions how the idea of "technology" changed 
from its original "common sense" meaning among the ancient Greeks?

The MOQ does conceptualize (okay, I won't use the word "define") 
Quality differently than how most people you stop on the street and 
ask understand the term. But that's GOOD! It is this difference that, 
when articulated, has the potential to expand the vision of those 
unfamiliar with Pirsig's reconceptualizing of Quality.

[John]
Maybe it's ok for you and me, but for what I'd hope is our larger 
purpose - the dissemination of a new metaphysical perspective - we'd 
avoid that kind of loopholish esoteric-ness.

[Arlo]
I have no idea what "esoteric-ness" you think I'm promoting. Nothing 
I am saying implies that Pirsig's ideas are, or should be, held 
behind a veil of obfuscation. But when a word is used differently, 
because a concept is constructed differently, then we should be able 
to explain that difference, no? Esotericism would imply that we can 
not explain it, and I am arguing precisely the opposite. We CAN 
explain why Quality conceptualized within a MOQ is different from 
Quality in its non-MOQ "common sense" meaning.

[John]
No quality is non-existence, I'll buy.  But why can't you admit the 
possibility of ant-quality as something which exists but obviates 
superior patterns?

[Arlo]
If you're implying that "negative Quality" is the immoral destruction 
of higher level patterns by lower level patterns, then the phrase 
"immoral" is good enough, I'd argue.

I just sent thoughts on this in a reply to DMB, so I won't repost 
everything here. Suffice it to say that I find the concept of 
"negative Quality" to make no sense in a MOQ where Quality = 
experience. I can think of no instance where saying "low quality" (as 
Pirsig does) does not provide the same meaning while staying 
consistent with his concepts.

[Arlo previouosly]
 From within the biological level itself, killing for the sake of 
killing is an empty concept.

[John]
I'd say its more than empty, I'd say its negative.

[Arlo]
This makes no sense. Biological patterns act in response to Quality, 
there actions within the biological level are always a context-based 
evaluation of moving towards "better Quality".

[John]
I think "negative quality" is a pragmatically useful description of 
certain anti-patterns I observe in the world.

[Arlo]
I think its incoherent within the concepts you are trying to use. If 
one pattern destroys another, from within that pattern it is moving 
"towards betterness". An asteroid that snuffs out life on earth is 
not "negative quality", it is responding within its inorganic 
repertoire to a path from lower quality to higher quality contexts.

This is what the levels provides us, a way to differentiate the 
movement towards quality is not always anthropomorphic. When a dog 
kills a rabbit it does so because, for whatever reasons, the dog 
determines that killing the rabbit is "better" than not killing 
it.  Of course, the rabbit would appraise being eaten as a "low 
quality" situation, and would likely struggle to find someway to turn 
its perceived context into a higher-quality situation (by fleeing, perhaps).

When a dog kills a man, the same context applies. The dog is not 
acting with "negative quality", it has made its biological value 
appraisal that killing the "man" is better than not killing the 
"man". From the man's point of view, being attacked by the dog is a 
very low-quality situation, and he will likely take whatever steps 
are possible to him to move from this low-quality to a higher-quality 
situation (by fleeing, or by shooting the dog, or whatever).

One final note, I suppose an argument that "negative Quality" is that 
which moves in the opposite direction from "betterness", in other 
words, "negative quality" would that which moves towards "worseness".

In the case of the amoeba, "negative Quality" would be for the amoeba 
to move into the drop of acid, in the hot stove analogy, it would be 
for the man to move ONTO the hot stove (assuming there was not a 
higher "betterness" goal in mind, like self-immolaters who protest injustice).

The catch is that it is not "negative quality" if something makes 
YOUR context worse in the pursuit of its own betterness, it would 
only be "negative Quality" if you make your own context worse (again 
without any higher-level motive to make things "better"). An 
"anarchist", for example, may advocate the destruction of social 
patterns of value, but he does so within a larger context that living 
under "anarchy" is better than living under "governance".

The problem would be identifying this in experience, as a MOQ would 
suggest that every pattern moves towards perceived conditions of 
betterness, and "destruction" only occurs when there is conflict 
between two patterns each moving towards betterness but with 
differing views on that context.