[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[118]

Hi Arlo,
The irony is that this discussion has degenerated, something I wish to
avoid.  But I take your point.  I will stop being provocative about
who is the real Deal.

On Apr 19, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [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?

Mark:
Metaphysics is a description of what is.  There is only one "what is"
by definition.  Therefore there are a number of synonyms, each with
their own static baggage.  They all describe an individual's
relationship with the cosmos, put to words.  Some are personal, some
impersonal, some are caring, some estranging, some have purpose,
others are simply random accidents.  Your choice, there is no best one
for all.  Choose whichever suits your personality.
>
> 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:
Ah, so "stable patterns of value" is not a mistake?  This is where it
seems religious on me.  That "is a mistake of SOM" is somehow outside
the mistake, only demonstrates an indoctrination.  That one would
profess as being on the outside, indicates a believe to be receiving
instructions from a divine being, in my opinion.

I find the objective/subjective distinction to be more useful than you
circular "mistake of SOM" for one are just placing oneself in a
paradox within a paradox, by claiming a mistake of SOM.  By the way,
why would you think there are "mistakes of SOM"?  Was it something you
experienced?
>
> [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".

You say that clarity comes before dogma.  How is it that one can judge
clarity if not through dogma?  If something follows the accepted dogma
is it not more clear?  If something does not follow the expected dogma
is it not vague?  You suggest that we "know what we say" does this not
involve incorporating dogma?  Or is "knowing what one says”
independent of judgment?  For how can one judge what another says?
Need we have anyone tell us these things?
>
> [Mark]
> Quality does not exist, per say, or that would make it a thing.
>
> [Arlo]
> What do you mean by "per say"?

Meaning "in the literal" (I meant per se, sorry).
>
> [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.

No, I do not suggest such a thing.  Quality is all that exists, and we
give it different names.  All those names also exist.  And yes,
Quality can be said to exist independently of subjects and objects.
What I mean with the non-existence, is the same thing that Buddhists
mean by Nothingness.  This is not to be  confused with the absence of
somethingness, or to be confused with what is presented by some others
in this forum about Nothingness.

Take the following example:
I grab an apple and cut it in half and give you a choice of halves.
You look at the two halves and choose the one with the higher quality
for you.
Now, what was it that allowed you to make that choice?  What you
perceived was a difference in quality of the two halves.  Therefore
what gave you the choice was not either of the two halves, but their
difference.  So, can you eat this difference?  Is this difference
something you can put in a bag?  No of course not.  So, where does
this difference lie?
Additionally, what comes first, the two halves or the difference
between them?  The SOM personality would say that the two halves must
exist first for there to be a difference between them.  However, the
MoQ would say that the difference exists before the two halves.
Again, what is the nature of this difference that exists before the
two halves?  Where do you find it?  Well the answer is obvious; you
cannot find it because it does not exist.  Yet, how then does it
create the two halves?  Here the analogy is the knife used to cut the
halves.  There were no two halves before the knife created them.
Likewise, subject and object do not exist before Quality creates them.
 What does Quality create?  It creates qualities of course.  Without
qualities there is nothing (for real).

Hope that made some sense.
>
> [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?

Arlo, you are the one who claims that one must think correctly in
order to profess on MoQ.  You are the one pointing to basic tenants
that must be observed.  I take my suggestion from you.
>
> [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.

OK, so now we have MoQ as that dictated by a prophet.  It is only the
prophet who knows and must be sought for advice.  What happens when he
is dead?  How is this any different from priesthood in Christianity?
Would you say the Existentialism must completely conform to the
writings of Sartre (for example)?  Would you say that Buddhism in only
based on what it is claimed that Buddha said (since he did not write
anything down)?  Is all of Taoism captured in a simple poem?  Is all
of MoQ captured in a few rare appearances?  What is so special about
Pirsig that makes his the final word on a metaphysics based on his
Quality from ZAMM?  This Quality was experienced by many, ZAMM was a
bestseller.  Do you think their Quality was exactly the same as
Pirsig’s?  Did it need to be, to be True Quality?  What is with this
adoration?  It seems way to rigid to be useful.

I point to exactly the same thing that Pirsig points to but I use
different words and examples.  Do I need Pirsig’s blessing for it to
be MoQ?  Maybe I do.
>
> [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.

Well Arlo, what I see is a tendency towards dogma at a very early
stage in the development of MoQ.  This is all I am saying.  I
understand that you would not want to present me with a synopsis of
MoQ.  It may be too revealing.
>
> 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.

Arlo, you are free to disagree with Pirsig as well, I give you my
permission.  I am not sure what that means, does he write us to tell
us he disagrees, or do we have to guess?  Is it a bad thing to
disagree?  Is it somewhat heretical?  "OMG he disagrees with the
Reverend Pirsig!!"  This is what I mean by making a religion out of
it.  Have you had the opportunity to be in the presence of "The Great
One?"  I know that there are some that boast about this.  What is that
nonsense?  Are they giving fame to Pirsig?  Is that what he wants?

> 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. It’s funny. But I'm sure you completely miss the irony.

Well, you are correct there, and maybe I got you wrong.  The intention
of this forum as far as I can tell is to create a metaphysics which
has far reaches and can be understood by many.  We have the luxury of
a variety of countries, upbringings, ages, and political bents.  As
with any metaphysics, there are always those who claim to be the true
interpreter.  It is simply this that I caution against.  It is way too
early to know.  Perhaps you are not a dmb clone, or a Dan clone.  I
have no problem with them, but sometimes I like to pull their covers.
It’s all good, it all spawns conversation.

Anyway, enough of that, you know my position, and it may be the same
as yours.  We can continue with our presentations within MoQ, and let
some throw tomatoes from the gallery.  This was an interesting
discussion, thanks.

Ironically yours :-)
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