[MD] humpty dumpty

[118]

Hi Jan Anders,
Thanks for giving me something to respond to.  It is much better than
this "my Quality is better than your Quality" nonsense that some seem
to reply with.  The point is to bring subjects up for discussion and
then discuss them.  Not revert to name calling and quoting the Good
Book as some kind of proof of anything.  It is my flaw that I do not
speak Swedish, so I have you at a disadvantage since this discussion
is in English.  I will keep that in mind.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Jan Anders Andersson
<jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
> Mark
>
> 8 aug 2012 kl. 18.01 wrote 118:
>
>> Hi Jan Anders,
>> I really do not find anything of substance in your post to me.  I
>> expected more from you.  I thought this was a forum to discuss MoQ,
>> not to say that a book had been written on such.  If you have an
>> opinion on the reason behind the structure which Pirsig creates then
>> by all means present it.  Otherwise sit on the sidelines and learn.
>
> J A: RMP presents a reason for the four-level structure in LILA, ch 24 for ex. I don't have to put in the text here. No reason. You should have a copy yourself, right?
> And, my suggestion was the answer to you, questioning the four levels:

Mark:  As it turns out, if somebody really understands something, they
can paraphrase it.  I suggest you read Chapter 24 so that you learn
why the 4 levels are presented.  This will be my answer to you.  Don't
report back until you have read it carefully.    How does that grab
you?  Don't you see what kind of nonsense that is.  I could tell you
to read the bible.
>
>> Mark asked:
>> Why does Pirsig choose the scientific levels of inorganic, biological,
>> social, and intellectual in order to create a metaphysics based on Quality?
>> I know what they are, I am a scientist.  Why does Pirsig find this
>> particular method of sorting helpful?
>
> J A: My answer is that there use to be a reason, a cause, why a dichotomy, a differentiation is used. Pirsigs cause is understanding of evolution and different morals.
> My contribution to the MOQ is that there is also a common question about Time, Thermodynamics and Money (Faith in Price and Economism as a more "hip" religion than ZEN) regarding the levels that can be interesting to explore.
> See again in MALC ch 1 and 12.
> Are your cause to build a new personal MOQ from scratch? From direct experience of indefinable Quality? I'm really looking forward to your useful reports from that trip. With the scientific approach.

Mark:
It appears to me that you are the one building an MOQ from scratch.
However, I will respond to what you say above.  "There used to be a
reason" seems a rather strange manner in which to explain something.
I am not quite sure what you mean by that.  I am afraid that Pirsig's
grasp of evolution is rather rudimentary.  In fact, as I recall he
dismisses the discipline of Science as futile since it creates more
questions than it answers.  Therefore the manner in which Pirsig uses
the term "evolution" must be taken in context.   I provide "reports"
with every post I deliver.  Perhaps I am the writer from abroad
"somewhere in Qualityland" reporting from the embassy.  I simply tell
others what it is like to live in the realm of Quality.  Perhaps my
words and examples are different from Pirsig's, but they are
completely consistent.  Trust me.

I commend you for "exploring" alternatives.  I, for one, am all for
that.  Just be careful since there are many in this forum that will be
calling you names before long.  I have no need to build a new MOQ from
scratch.  Everything I present is consistent with Pirsig.  At least
nobody has said anything to the contrary (except call me names).  If
you pay attention to WHY Pirsig writes what he does, rather than what
he writes, you will get a better idea of Quality.  He presents a
metaphysics from the viewpoint of Quality.  This is exactly what I am
doing (believe it or not).  It appears that your Quality is
inconsistent with Pirsig's Quality.  This is because you are
approaching it not as an awareness, but as the result of a
metaphysics.  You can read all you want, but you are not going to find
Quality there.
>
>>
>> That you would consider Zoroastrian dualism as a model for
>> presentation is up to you.  I do not think you have any idea of what
>> you write there.  I prefer the William Blake approach of merging the
>> duality.  You also probably have no idea what I am speaking of there
>> either.  So please do not pretend to be erudite in these matters.
>> Stick to your novels which simply retell a story.
>>
>> I have the MoQ to live by.  It is not the fancy metaphysics that you
>> prefer to expound on.  Quality is a manner of interpretation.  It is
>> that by which one reconciles one’s existence.  It creates a personal
>> relationship with what is, and is therefore the creation of meaning.
>> There is no distance here, in fact "distance" is not even an
>> appropriate word to use.  I thought you had perhaps come some way by
>> writing a book on the subject, but you seem to be going over the same
>> old ground (and what have you found?).  Like I said, stick to your
>> fictional novels and leave the philosophizing up to others.
>
> J A: If you think you are in direct contact with "Quality", what is your experience that is different from and not appropriate to the MOQ?

My experience is appropriate to MOQ.  That you would even ask me about
"contact with Quality" belies the sense that you have no idea what
Quality is.  I suggest you give ZAMM a read.  Pretend you are in
Pirsig's (or Phaedrus') shoes.  See if it makes more sense to you that
way.  Everytime you read Phaedrus or "I" substitute "Jan".  Quality is
not something one is in contact with.  It is a manner of viewing
existence.  I don't know how I can make this any more clear (except
maybe in Swedish).
>
>>
>> As you should know, the levels are trivial when it comes to Quality; I
>> am not asking for a replacement.  They are a form of explanation for
>> something that needs no explanation.  My question (now to you) is what
>> is it about the levels that help you construct a sense of Quality of
>> the world?
>
> J A: For example, it is ridiculous to arrange a social party as a biological event. "Survival of the fittest" is not directly appropriate at the social level where cooperation by different parties can build a new whole.

I don't even want to get into this "survival of the fittest" with you.
 Suffice it to say that it is a tautology.  I could explain to you
that it is not the fittest that survive, but the most adaptable.
Given the tautology you would then say "Well the most adaptable are
the fittest!"    I could then counter that a social level is an
expression of such "fittest".  And the discussion degenerates into
nonsense.  Survival of the fittest simply states that those who
survive are those who survive.  Nothing more.  Unfortunately, this
phrase is used to justify all sorts of atrocities that man commits
against fellow man and the planet in general.  It is a nihilistic
manner in which to view the world.  And, in fact, is simply wrong.
The "selfish gene" is just plain misguided.  There are plenty of
better ways in which to explain things.  But, that is a whole nother
topic and I have dealt with this one many times in the past.

Having said that, I think I get what you mean.  It is the mixing of
levels that provides What Is.  In that I would agree with you.  This
could be considered one of the reasons for bringing in levels.  That
would be to demonstrate a system which is multifaceted and
synergistic.  Each one of us is made up of four levels in dynamic
interplay.  Just remember that the intellect is not the intellectual
level.  Such a misguided notion will lead to the whole SOM debacle.

> Writing contributions at an internet forum is a social matter but is often using intellectual concepts. That is why it is not so important for members of the discussion to operate as "real persons". Experience of Quality does not guarantee that it will be Good, experience of Quality can also be destructive and malicious. "GOOD!" Senator Palpatine, Star Wars III.

Again, I will have to stress that one does not "experience Quality".
That just does not make sense.  It is not some wind that blows through
us.  Pirsig makes this clear.  Get away from that notion, and stick to
Quality being a prism with which to view the world.  It exists as
such, and not in a materialistic sense.  Or else, next thing you know
people will be using Quality to justify everything they do just like
they use "evolution" now.  "It was not my fault!  Quality made me do
it! (and other victim-like utterances).


>   A thoruogh understanding of the four levels can help a person with some distance to balance his patterns in a proper manner so that the different levels fit to each other. The right material and the right biology put together in a social situation where intellect is freely and correctly distributed as an example. Not a bad receipt to begin with for a good life or a good membership on any forum for discussion.

Yes, I agree with this.  Let us not forget that we have no control
over any of the levels, we are formed BY them.  I am not quite sure
what you mean by the intellect being "correctly distributed", sound
kind of ominous to me.  Who decides what is correct.  Is this a case
of the intellect directing itself.  As you know such a thing is a
paradox, like the nonsensical phrase "thinking about thinking".  That
thinking just does not exist, it is all simply thinking.

>   I would also suggest that you consider the fact that most of the members of this group sooner or later comes into opposition to you, even Marsha. Either you are expressing yourself in the wrong way or all the other has a hard time to understand your message. The quality of rhetoric is mostly the responsibility of the sender. In the long run there is always a possibility to use statistics to find out where the problem lies. In the very long run, survival of the fittest and mutations will decide.

Well, J-A, thank you for bringing that to my attention.  As it turns
out most members of the group have no argument against what I propose
and simply revert to name calling, because what I say seems to be in
conflict with their fundamental beliefs of reality (which is the
standard Western reality that we are brought up in).  Sometimes it
hurts to pull somebodies covers.  However, I fully expect other
members to defend what they believe in.  You may be right about the
difficulty in understanding the message.  I think that many do not
understand Pirsig's message.  The only manner to really understand
what he is proposing is to live within a Quality awareness where
everything is interpreted that way.

The thing of it is, is that I have no ego in this.  People can call me
whatever names they want to.  On occasion I do receive a civil
response to one of my opinions.  At that time I learn something.  We
should all try to stick to the subject, which is MOQ, and stop all
this grandstanding and "king of the hill" mentality.  Two different
opinion can both be right.  We are not conjecturing any fundamental
Truth here.
>
>> If you choose simply to say "it is written", then you can
>> join the rest of those that proselytize on the “good book”.  As it is,
>> you are providing nothing of substance to the discussion.  This is a
>> forum for philosophy not for simplistic homilies.  You should know
>> better; get serious.  Perhaps writing in your native tongue would
>> help.  I can try to translate it.
>
> J A: If philosophy isn't fun, why bother? I don't try to humiliate you, my hints are seriously ment to you. "The Family that Ooonts together Grooonts together", Don Martin. http://comicrazys.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/completely_mad_don_martin_p033.jpg

Yes, and my hints are geared for you to come down to earth.  You are a
bit lost in "the way it must be".  Take a deep breath and try to get
beyond that.  Writing a book is a good start, but just a start.  I
have to say that it takes a lot to humiliate me, since I have no ego.
Humility (not humiliation) bring great freedom.  All of my forceful
rhetoric is simply a literary technique to wake people up.  Wake up
Jan!

> Yes, I can send you a code for a free copy in Swedish. Actually, I prefer to write in English as there are three letters less for my little finger.

Yes, and I cannot read Swedish.  I was simply stating that I have you
at a disadvantage.  I am sure you are much more eloquent in your
native tongue.

> What language are you translating into? Urdu, Marwari, Hindi, Gujrati, Rajasthani, Tagalog? I'd really like to have a review in those languages. They're chasing me every day because Amazon.com can't take their local currency.

Hmmm... Well I am as fluent in Spanish as I am in English.  However my
command of spanish philosophical lingo is pretty poor.

On a related subject.  Does anybody have any idea on how ZAMM was
received in places like Japan, or India, or China?  I was wondering if
the message worked in those countries.


> Take care, of yourself, and your father.

Thank you for that.  My father passed away.  His name was Jan, by the
way.  Born in Den Haag, fought in the Dutch underground against the
Germans.  Finally moved to the US when he was 65.   One week He and I
are having a philosophical discussion, the next week I had to find a
new partner to discuss with.  As natural as breathing.
>
Regards,
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
>>>
>> 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
>
> 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