[MD] Descriptions of Quality

[118]

Hi Andre,

Thank you for your response, since it gives me someplace to start.
However, I am rather dumbfounded on where to begin.  This may just be
a language barrier, so do not feel insulted if I start with some very
basic concepts.

Metaphysics of Quality is a presentation of Quality in metaphysical
terms.  What is metaphysics?  Well that definition can be found easily
all over the place.  Since we like Wiki, I will use the first
statement therein:
"Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the
fundamental nature of being and the world (Wiki)", it of course goes
on.  So that is metaphysics, it is a manner of explanation.  So, what
is MoQ explaining?  It is explaining Quality.  What is Quality?  Well
Pirsig brings in the concept of Quality into the literature with ZAMM.
 He then goes on to provide a deeper presentation of Quality in Lila.


Therefore MoQ is a metaphysical description of what he means by
Quality.  If you have a problem with this, then please let me know
what it is.

I will now go on to your post below.

On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mark said to Anyone:
>
> As we know we are discussing a description of Quality which Pirsig brought to our attention almost 40 years ago.
>
> As a description of Quality using metaphysical tools, there are certain principles that guide such metaphysics.
>
> Andre:
> I hate to break this to you Mark but neither ZMM nor LILA is a 'description of Quality'. I'd like to know where you find that Pirsig DESCRIBES Quality.

Mark:
I think I explained this above, but to reiterate, MoQ is the
Metaphysics OF Quality.  We can speak of the metaphysics of Buddhism,
or the metaphysics of Christian mysticism, or the metaphysics of
Alchemy.  All of these are the metaphysics of something.  Pirsig
presents a metaphysics of Quality.  That is, he is describing Quality
in metaphysical terms.  He does this by way of example, and does not
choose epistemology.  This is not uncommon, and James does the same
thing with Pragmatism.  Pragmatism is a tool in philosophy and can
also be considered a branch of philosophy itself.

So I would say that Lila is a description of Quality in metaphysical
terms.  Please be aware that any description of such a vast body (that
would be everything that is) is never complete, and can often
misdirect the reader.  Pirsig cautions all of us with that.  All of
the major religions also provide that caution (although it is not
followed by many who put statues on their walls).
>
> Mark:
> 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.
>
> Mark:
> You are dodging Mark. I was responding directly to your statement that ideas come before DQ. This is like saying that Newton wrote his Law of Gravity at his writing desk...then went out for a snooze in his garden where an apple fell on his head which, of course woke him from his slumbers after which he exclaims: 'See, that's gravity!'

Mark:
This is the whole principle behind the Ghost of Reason that Pirsig
spends some time on.  Yes, Newton wrote down the law of gravity at his
desk, and then the concept of gravity in Newtonian terms was born.
Before that such "gravity" did not exist.  What this means is that
gravity was not thought of in those terms.  The laws of gravity are
concepts.  We invent them.  His laws were arrived at through
experimentation and modeling with math.  That is the way physics
works.  To get even more fundamental, we can say that he created the
laws of gravity like a painter paints a picture.  Surely you will not
say that the painting existed before the painter painted it.  Although
there are some who will argue this in interesting ways by saying that
the painting was simply revealed by the painter but was there all
along.  I do not have a problem with this form of argument, but it is
not the one Pirsig is making.  Pirsig is referring to static quality
being a ghost.
>
> Or, where Archimedes runs naked through the streets exclaiming 'Eureka, eureka' and then, on recommendation of his fellow citizens takes a much needed bath and says: 'See!'.

Archimedes realized that the volume of an object could be determined
by the water it displaced.  This solve a problem such as: when a fish
is put into the water, does it become part of the water?  Of course
the question was proposed by those who think way too much about these
things.  But Archimedes discovered a method of measurement, and no,
the fish does not become part of the water, in fact water has to move
out of the way to make room for the fish.
>
> You have it upside down, arse about, reverse order. First you have DQ then you get the ideas. This was in reference to David's suggestion for you to re-evaluate your statement and he quoted Pirsig:
>
> A direct quote from Lila:
>
> "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source of all things, completely simple and always new."
>
> Comprendo?

Mark:
DQ is something we make up to explain reality.  It is a concept, just
like God is.  It is used to explain Quality.  One cannot rightly say
that the concept created itself.  The rhetoric used by Pirsig is meant
to convey how he sees DQ.  However, he is projecting this from the
static world.  Pirsig understands this since he understands the ghost
of reason.  He is presenting rhetoric, not some fundamental truth.
This is why MoQ is better at solving some of the problems of Western
Philosophy.  It does not pretend to be conveying truths, only the best
explanations.  Of course what is best depends on the reader.

DQ lives in our heads.

Comprende?
>
> Mark:
> 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.
>
> Andre:
> You are incorrigible most times Mark. Marsha made the suggestion of your 'intellectual jumps and heel-clicks' as she termed it. I agreed with her and keep on agreeing with her that it is very annoying.
>
> You keep on wanting 'thoughts on Quality'. You think the MoQ is one 'description' of Quality. Jeez man, what is there to say about Quality? A 'nothingness within which there is great working'? ( a la Katigiri Roshi?)

Two books have been written about Quality.  In line with the
suggestions of others, I suggest you read them with the understanding
that they are about Quality.  Sure you can describe Quality as some
"nothingness", I have no problem with that, but you are describing
Quality.  We can call this Andre's metaphysics of quality.

>
> Your heaven in which, for all eternity 10.000 angels sing the cantates of Bach in reverence to your holy trinity?

Hmmm....  My Holy trinity makes up Quality.  Do you have something
against spirituality?  Pirsig would not like that...
>
> What's your obsession with knowing about Quality?

Pirsig is trying to teach us about Quality.  You should ask him what
his obsession is with Quality, not mine.  Trying to know about
Quality, sent him off the deep end, in case you forgot.  Then he swam
back and wanted to tell us about it.  If you do not want to know about
Quality, then what are you doing in a forum devoted to a Metaphysics
of Quality?
>
> Mark:
> It is all in how one uses Quality that matters.
>
> Andre:
> This is a nice example of what I mean. Your 'how one uses Quality'[????] as if it is some thing to be handled??????????????????

Mark:
Well, if you have a problem with this then I cannot help you.  All of
ZAMM is devoted to how Pirsig uses his awareness of Quality.  He
provides many examples of how this can be done.  One uses it by
realizing that there are alternate ways is which to view reality.  It
is meant to broaden our understanding of our existence.  Quality is an
awareness of reality that Pirsig writes about in his books.  He uses
Quality to come up with the things that he does.  I am not sure what
you are using.

Andre, I really am lost in terms of where you are coming from.  Are
you discussing the metaphysics of Pirsig (MoP), or the Metaphysics of
Quality (MoQ)?  This site is devoted to the latter.  There is another
good site which is devoted to Pirsig.
>
> Lolol.
>
> As Bodvar used to say: 'Go back to kindergarten'.

Mark:
Well, I will stick to discussing Quality in metaphysical terms since I
believe that is the purpose of the Metaphysics of Quality.  You can do
anything you want.  If you do not want to think about Quality that is
fine by me.

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