[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Mark]
My point was that a description of Quality, or God, or whatever, is a 
subjective description.

[Arlo]
Curious, as I don't recall your answer to a previous question, when you 
say "Quality, God or whatever", what other terms would you find 
synonymous, and do you feel the commonality of "undefinedness" is what 
makes all these terms interchangeable?

I'd say that descriptions are neither subjective nor objective, since 
that's just repeating the mistake of SOM, but that descriptions are 
stable patterns of value (in our traditions, mostly social or 
intellectual) that emanate from experience (direct and filtered). I will 
agree there are innumerable descriptions out there, and demanding one be 
"true" is also a mistake of SOM.

[Mark]
Once one promotes his diction into dogma, we are left with a religion.

[Arlo]
I think this is your own monkey, Mark. No one is suggesting Pirsig's 
ideas are "dogma", but that is hardly the same thing as being clear and 
precise about what he did say, and what he did not say. As DMB correctly 
points out, before one can discern where one agrees or disagrees with 
Pirsig (or any other person), one has to know what they say. This is a 
move towards clarity, not "dogma".

[Mark]
Quality does not exist, per say, or that would make it a thing.

[Arlo]
What do you mean by "per say"?

[Mark]
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.

[Arlo]
You seem to suggest that 'existence' is a feature of subjects and 
objects, but not what gives rise to them? I agree with your statement 
here, though, I'm just not sure how this demonstrates that Quality does 
not exist (or does not exist 'per say'). My understanding of Pirsig is 
that he suggested that Quality is ALL that exists, and that subjects and 
objects do not exist 'independently' of Quality.

[Mark]
I have yet to see somebody post the eight basic tenants that provide the 
basis for MoQ.

[Arlo]
Are you suggesting there are, or there are not, "basic tenants" for MOQ?

[Mark]
Instead, all I hear are clever parsing of words, from a club who claims 
to be the true interpreters of Pirsig.

[Arlo]
There are a few here who are, or have been, in direct communication with 
Pirsig, and I trust they are relating Pirsig's intentionality 
accurately. Based on his own comments, I'd say this the case.

[Mark]
Do you consider yourself to have a full understanding of MoQ so that you 
can now elevate yourself to the position of teacher?

[Arlo]
I strive to know enough so that I know when I agree and when I disagree 
with someone.

[Mark]
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.

[Arlo]
Again, this is your monkey, Mark, not mine. If you find my posts of 
little value, you are free to ignore them, it matters nothing to me.

It is funny, though, as the comment I made that produced such ire was 
simply "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." You've turned an 
anti-dogmatic statement into a "religious bandwagon", and I think this 
is the source of your incoherence.

Indeed, if anything, by arguing that we simply talk about Pirsig's ideas 
and your ideas and my ideas, I've completely stripped any 'dogma' out of 
the equation. Ironically, by demanding that we argue over who speaks for 
The MOQ, or what The MOQ says, you turn the MOQ into a deity of sorts. 
Its funny. But I'm sure you completely miss the irony.