[MD] Descriptions of Quality
118
ununoctiums at gmail.com
Sat Jul 7 07:52:07 PDT 2012
Hi Jan,
Yes I have purchased this book and I am working my way through it. I read 1 to 2 books per week and usually have a number open at the same time.
Currently I am working through a biography on Swedenborg by Ernst Benz. I recommend this book to you.
All the best,
Mark
On Jul 7, 2012, at 5:17 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
> Well Mark
>
> Have you considered reading "Money and the Art of Losing Control" yet?
> It's yours on iTunes ibookstore for only $0.99 this month.
> It contains a description of 42, or 43, aspects of static Quality...or is that number 43 representing dynamic Quality?
> (btw Anyone remembering the name of he game presented in MAD magazine in the 60's where 43 men were aquired to play?)
>
> Jan Anders
>
> 7 jul 2012 kl. 07:13 skrev 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>:
>
>> Helllo Anyone interested in Quality,
>>>
>>
>> There have been some interesting posts recently; some of them have been
>> directed at me. I will do my best to respond to these as I can.
>> Unfortunately there were some posts which I will have a difficulty in
>> determining the philosophy being expressed.
>>
>> As we know we are discussing a description of Quality which Pirsig brought
>> to our attention almost 40 years ago. Some have been with it for that
>> period of time, others are new additions to this metaphysical structure.
>> All are of course welcome. As a description of Quality using metaphysical
>> tools, there are certain principles that guide such metaphysics. I do not
>> think I need to remind others what these are. The purpose of this
>> metaphysics is to guide an understanding of Quality, in a manner which is
>> always improving.
>>
>> I would like to post comments to some of these posts below.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andre:
>>>
>>> David asked Mark to 're-evaluate'. Mark suggests that "The idea comes
>>> before DQ".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest...like David: please re-evaluate. You have it all upside down
>>> and arse-about Mark. Now start learning about Pirsig's MoQ! There are books
>>> there and Anthony has very kindly made you an offer... remember???
>>>
>>
>> Mark: Yes, there are books on the subject, which include a few thesis.
>> There are also writings from a long time ago which are also about Quality,
>> these can be found in Pirsig's writings. That you call this Pirsig's MoQ
>> suggests that perhaps you are not familiar with these. The differentiation
>> between a world of ideas and a world outside of ideas is nothing new. That
>> existence can be allocated to a single principle is also not new. The
>> concept of Value has been presented with many different names.
>>
>> I am not sure what you think I have upside down, since you do not say. I
>> am not sure if I am supposed to guess what these are. Perhaps you can
>> present what you mean. Maybe a paragraph on Pirsig's MoQ from you would be
>> helpful.
>>
>> I remain consistent with Pirsig's MoQ. Perhaps it is my use of terms of
>> concepts and examples which lie outside of Pirsig's books that confuses
>> you. However, I am really not sure why you are confused. I try to be as
>> clear as possible. Until you present what you mean, I cannot answer any
>> better than that.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:08 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "He began to see that he had shifted away from his original stand. He was
>>> no longer talking about a metaphysical trinity, but an absolute monism.
>>> Quality was the source and substance of everything. A whole new flood of
>>> philosophic associations came to mind. Hegel had talked like this, with his
>>> Absolute Mind. Absolute Mind was independent too, both of objectivity and
>>> subjectivity. However, Hegel said the Absolute Mind was the source of
>>> everything, but then excluded romantic experience from the "everything" it
>>> was the source of. Hegel's Absolute was completely classical, completely
>>> rational and completely orderly.
>>>
>>> Quality was not like that."..
>>>
>>> ...What he had been talking about all the time as Quality was here in the
>>> Tao, the great central generating force of all religions, Oriental and
>>> Occidental, past and present, all knowledge, everything."
>>>
>>
>> Dmb, it would be useful to understand what you read in these quotes. That
>> you can google the word monism is not helpful. As you know, any
>> metaphysical trinity are the parts of an absolute monism. In the physical
>> world, these could be considered as Mass, Energy, and Forces. Often
>> physicist try to Create a Theory of Everything to create this monism.
>> String theory would be a good example of this. Certainly Quality can be
>> considered both source and substance. However, the term monism in not
>> really appropriate unless one is trying to explain Quality to the reader
>> using rhetoric. Then such a thing is appropriate, but the use of monism is
>> not adequate and will fall apart on philosophical analysis. The academic
>> philosophers probably already know of the paradoxes associated with this
>> form of simplification.
>>
>> Quality cannot be considered monistic or pluralistic. My favorite example,
>> love, cannot be considered monistic or pluralistic. Such terms just do not
>> make any sense. However, it can be said that love is the source and
>> substance of all.
>>
>> The quote you present is formated in the classical mode (just like
>> Hegel's). This is a difficulty in any metaphysics since it is used to
>> present structure through intellectual premises. One can certainly point
>> to a "grooving" with metaphysics, but this is done classically. One
>> confession of Pirsig's was that he could no longer take the romantic
>> approach that his alter ego (before the medial intervention) could. He
>> must deal with this ego of romantic understanding as a third person. The
>> romantic approach is not structured enough to write a metaphysics with.
>>
>> Certainly Quality has been discussed for thousands of years. MoQ is
>> nothing new, as the second paragraph you provide points out. MoQ is a
>> modern interpretation of Quality. As Pirsig found out it is more of a
>> perennial philosophy.
>>
>> Unfortunately the Tao was not the central generating force for all great
>> religions. Nor should it be considered as such. The Tao is not a
>> generating system, it is a Way. Just like the way of playing baseball
>> provides the game. It is misleading to speak of both Quality and Tao as
>> "sources". This is a fallacy of using a cause effect paradigm which the
>> West seem to be stuck in. Quality is more adequately described as an event.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Michael R. Brown <mrb at fuguewriter.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's important to distinguish between a thing, our idea of that thing, and
>>> the presence of that thing in our thinking.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One may start out with ideas solidly saturated with SQ and very little
>>> admittance of DQ. This doesn't mean that one *knows* about SQ or DQ.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Phaedrus is an amazing example of personal growth. He was a Zorro of SQ,
>>> wielding his blade - and by that very means, he gets to DQ - and thus his
>>> SQ adventures were also saturated in DQ.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's all about the consciousness in which one is in - or out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One of the profoundest Zen sayings: "Zen is just a trick of words."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> MRB
>>>
>>
>> Yes, MRB, I can agree with what you write. You have created a useful
>> trinity above. One can match The Father, The Son, and The Holy ghost to
>> this trinity. Religion is highly mystical, at least when practices by
>> those who dedicate their lives to it. There is nothing stupid about such
>> practice, and we should be aware of its mystical uses. In the past I have
>> suggested a useful trinity for Quality, but I will not belabor that. If
>> Pirsig did not spell it out as such, nobody will see it as such.
>>
>> Using SQ, Pirsig creates DQ (in its static form). He uses this duality to
>> explain Quality in metaphysical terms. He does not have the training in
>> which to present DQ in more convincing terms, but a careful reading of Lila
>> can reveal what he means. Rhetoric is DQ, and the words and concepts are
>> SQ. DQ can be considered the manner in which SQ is used, and which
>> provides the growth of SQ. Most of our day is spent in DQ, and covers
>> everything outside of our intellectual awareness. Since we can only focus
>> on one thing at a time, everything else is not in the SQ realm, until we
>> focus on it. We have memories which, until brought to the surface, are DQ.
>> DQ can also be viewed as a "potential", much in the same way that
>> potential energy is considered. For those non-scientists, energy exists in
>> two mathematical forms, Potential and Kinetic. Potential energy means it
>> can result in kinetic energy. With this analogy, SQ is kinetic energy.
>>
>> Another profound saying I have heard in Zen, is that "the words are
>> ultimately trivial". It is important to see words as a means to an end,
>> and not the end in themselves. We can argue all day long about what words
>> Pirsig uses, but that will never reveal Quality. Quality cannot be found
>> in words.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ant McWatt comments:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "But, be careful. We have been told what happened to Pirsig."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pirsig had a breakdown (largely down to the extreme version of Western
>>> culture in which he was bought up in...) Wrote ZMM. Became world famous
>>> and a multi-millionaire. Bought a boat and sailed the world. Wrote a
>>> sequel on an advance of a million dollars...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes Mark, it kind of makes me less inclined being careful - strangely
>>> enough. But that's just me. Maybe It's my "eccentric" English upbringing!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes, as ever,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ant
>>>
>>
>> As you well know, Ant, Pirsig is one of my heros. I have written this to
>> you in an offline communication. You seem to be making excuses for him
>> above. I do not think he needs that kind of support. That he wrote good
>> books came after the fact of what he went through. It is not fun to have a
>> serious split from reality as he did.
>>
>> My point was that if you ever want to enter into the world of Quality,
>> rather than just analyzing it through SQ, it is not easy. Believe me, I
>> have friends who are still not comfortable with reality. Pirsig did not
>> have much help with his spiritual awakening. He is quite candid about what
>> he remembers. You may recall that he was taken for treatment by a
>> policeman. Clearly there were some concerns of safety. He does not go
>> into details about this. There is more which can be found in local police
>> reports at the time. Since I looked at these more than 30 years ago (for
>> personal reasons), I am not sure if they are on the internet. Back then we
>> had to go to a library and look through microfiche and the like.
>>
>> As I have said before, there are two results from a split from "normal
>> reality". One consequence is to remain "on the other side". The other
>> result is to use what one learned and bring it back to others. Bringing it
>> back was one dilemma that Buddha himself faced. What Pirsig did with ZAMM
>> was turn a detrimental breakdown into a spiritual awakening. In order to
>> fully understand what he saw, one must go there to see it. Pirsig returns
>> as a traveler to try to tell us what Quality is. He then does his best to
>> create a metaphysics with which to describe it. The metaphysics is not as
>> important as what it describes.
>>
>> Again, I have nothing but respect for Pirsig. What he went through was
>> difficult, and I am glad that he wrote about it. While he is not as
>> prolific as, say, Swedenborg, Emerson, Jacob Bohme, or others were, he does
>> present things in modern terms. It is a shame that he chose not to write
>> more. But, it is very difficult to put into words.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ant McWatt comments;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, WE ARE ALL always learning...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So if "the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source of all
>>> things, completely simple and always new" isn't a good definition of
>>> Dynamic Quality, what is?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Humour me (if for nothing else).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ant
>>>
>>
>> I think this is a great definition of DQ.
>>
>> As you may recall I stated that DQ cannot RIGHTLY be said to come before
>> SQ. Again, I must refer you to the ghost of reason which I believe is very
>> important to understand for understanding Quality. DQ is a concept which
>> was made up. It comes from the intellect. Therefore, strictly on logical
>> grounds, we cannot say that the concept we made up created itself. DQ did
>> not exist before we made it up, just like the concept of gravity (or
>> matter) existed before it was created intellectually.
>>
>> One cannot have his cake and eat it too. If one goes by the ghost of
>> reason argument, one cannot then say that DQ comes before that. I find
>> that the "ghost of reason" is one of the most compelling arguments within
>> the metaphysics of Quality. It really sets the stage for all the other
>> definitions and examples that Pirsig presents. Pirsig himself points to
>> the degeneracy of such words and concepts. They only create more of
>> themselves and will never reveal Quality as an awareness. It takes a
>> little more work than just reading about it.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Me thinks thou doth make light of dark matters, good knight. Ideas of
>>>
>>> ideas about ideas pertaining to ideas come before ideas, do they not?
>>>
>>> I challenge thee to deny this. Be thee full of care lest I smite thy
>>>
>>> grin from the grin that thou grinnist so grinnily.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the ideas of ideas are a paradox that MoQ seeks to dispel. It is like
>> thinking about thinking. As you know, there is a way out of this through
>> MoQ. Me? I am smiling all the way.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Marsha to Greetings:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can get annoyed with Mark, sometimes, but I also appreciate his
>>> intellectual jumps and heel-clicks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andre:
>>>
>>> Which is fair enough Marsha, but we are on a philosophical forum
>>> discussing Pirsig's MoQ i.e. ZMM and LILA and any further writings and
>>> sayings from Pirsig and closely related subjects.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are not in a dance-hall.
>>>
>>
>> Well Andre, perhaps you should stop dancing then and put down some
>> philosophy in this forum. How about it, Chum? Stop all this cheerleading
>> and give us some thoughts on Quality.
>>
>> We are discussing the description of Quality through metaphysics. What
>> Pirsig writes can lead to many personal revelations. That is why he wrote
>> an Inquiry. Ask yourself, what does what Pirsig wrote mean to you and your
>> outlook.
>>
>> If we are trending towards betterness then you do not have to be
>> pessimistic like Dan. It is all in how one uses Quality that matters.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark,
>>> We are having a discussion here about the MOQ, not whatever it is you
>>> are talking about. Unless you have something pertinent to add, please
>>> refrain from disrupting it.
>>> Thank you,
>>> Dan
>>
>>
>> My apologies Dan. You addressed your post to me and others so I had a
>> comment. I am still not sure what you mean by "discussing the MoQ". You
>> never responded to the appropriate means by which to discuss the MoQ. It
>> just seems that you do not like what I write and then say it is not "the
>> MoQ". Yet you never explain why.
>>
>> The MoQ is a description of Quality in metaphysical terms. I believe I was
>> discussing the MoQ. My comments were directed to some
>> fundamental misunderstandings that you have about the MoQ. I realize that
>> you do not care much for philosophy but often you seem to forget that this
>> is all about Quality.
>>
>> The idea of matter came before what we now agree on to call matter. This
>> does not mean that what was used to created the idea of matter did not
>> exist, for an idea must come from somewhere. That is all I was trying to
>> point out. It sound to me like you are saying that ideas create physical
>> reality. If I bump into a tree at night, this bump happens before I create
>> an idea of what happened. Ideas are static, but they come from the dynamic.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/**listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-**moqtalk.org<http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org>
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/**pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.**org/<http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/>
>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.**html <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
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list