[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[118]

Hi Arlo,


On Apr 18, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [Mark]
> "There is but one Quality and Pirsig is its Prophet"
> 
> [Arlo]
> There is one Quality, I'd say, although a quantifier seems odd. I think its better to just say 'there is Quality'. Are you suggesting there are multiple 'Qualities' at the first metaphysical level? So Pirsig divided one Quality into DQ/SQ but there are other Qualities that exist parallel to this?

My point was that a description of Quality, or God, or whatever, is a subjective description.  Pirsig presents a number of examples and labels, but he is not tied to those, and could have used many others to describe his awakening.  Once one promotes his diction into dogma, we are left with a religion.  The words are not Quality, and many have fallen into this trap that Pirsig cautioned against.  If quality can only be discussed using the appropriate buzz words, then it is short lived as a metaphysics.

Quality does not exist, per say, or that would make it a thing.  I would't go there if I were you, or you are going to make it into an idol.

Quality is that which lies between.  It creates subject and object, or the vast differences in qualities.  But you can never point to it, all you can point to is the results.

> 
> Pirsig offers one description of Quality in his metaphysics. There can, and have always been historically, multiple descriptions of Quality. I don't think Pirsig would ever suggest there is One True Description of Quality. There are 'better' descriptions, to be sure, and I would venture to say that what brings most of us here is that we find Pirsig's description to be among the 'best'.

Yes, and that descriptional process is presented in a story.  I have yet to see somebody post the eight basic tenants that provide the basis for MoQ.  Instead, all I hear are clever parsing of words, from a club who claims to be the true interpreters of Pirsig.

> 
> [Mark]
> MoQ is rapidly becoming a dogmatic religion for some.
> 
> [Arlo]
> You are free to disagree with Pirsig's MOQ, and articulate your differences, and when the day comes that you offer something better, I'm sure people will be interested in Mark's metaphysics. Although, then, by your own accord, you'll become a prophet leading an inquisition, through which the only escape is for people to disagree with you. Its a funny line of thought, "Here's something better than what others are saying, but you have to disagree with it or else you're a zombie". Kinda like a passive-aggressive metaphysics, "love me, but if you do i'll hate you".

Well, as far as I can tell, my interpretations are representative of what Pirsig is saying.  So if you disagree with me, then you disagree with Pirsig.  I often do not find much of substance in you posts in terms of progressing MoQ.  In fact I do not find much there to agree with or disagree with.  If you have difficulty with what I say, then challenge me on it.  If not, then don't go making things up.

Do you consider yourself to have a full understanding of MoQ so that you can now elevate yourself to the position of teacher?  You have not proven that you understand MoQ at all.  Prove me wrong with a couple of paragraphs that are your synopsis of MoQ.  Get off this righteous religious bandwagon.  Stop hiding behind facade of knowing what Pirsig knows in his heart of hearts.  My guess is that you have no idea, and all you have is some clever logic.

Show us what you know, or sit in the back of the bus.

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