[MD] Descriptions of Quality

[118]

Hi,
Well, I appreciated Ham's comments, and we have a long discussion
going offline.  I should give up on Andre.  I do not mind his
criticism since it makes him feel better.  Everybody needs an enemy to
define themselves.

I will give a try to explain somethings below, with the best of intentions.

On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ham to Mark, Andre, and All:
>
> Today Andre saw fit to chastise Mark for suggesting that Quality could be
> discussed "descriptively":
>
>> 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?)
>
>
> But is that a fair criticism in a forum whose very purpose is to discuss the
> Metaphysics of Quality?  I suspect the author himself would be appalled by
> such dismissal of his central concept.
>
> Andre:
> I think your criticism is not quite fair Ham. Mark, as I have followed him,
> is conflating Quality and Dynamic Quality as it is used in the MoQ. When
> Mark makes statements like: thoughts are DQ, I am living DQ, ideas come
> before DQ... then I am convinced he knows not what he is talking about and
> is making a mess of things.
> It appears to me that Mark is conflating 'action' with DQ.

Mark:
What I am trying to do is present examples on how DQ and Quality can
be approached.  I do this by means of analogy.  Pirsig uses the same
technique.  If one is following DQ, I could call that "living DQ".
This is just a choice of words to present a concept.  Some may find my
analogies useful, others not.  I throw them out there and hopefully
somebody will get a better idea of Quality from them.  However, as I
have said before, Quality is not something one can find in words, it
is a Way to read words.

It strikes me that not many people in the forum have an awareness
through Quality.  If we are to discuss a metaphysics of something, we
need to be aware of what that thing is.  For example, in the Stanford
Encyclopedia there is a section on the metaphysics of causation.  In
order to discuss such metaphysics, one has to know what causation is
in a general sense to begin discussing it.  Pirsig sees the world
through the prism of Quality.  He tries to desbribe what that is; it
is his way of looking at reality.  In order to discuss this MoQ, we
need to know what that way is.  Quality is not a thing or a substance
or a big reservior waiting to create.  It is a relationship with
existence.  This is what Pirsig is trying to teach.
>
> When he keeps on repeating that the MoQ is a description of Quality I am
> wondering what he is talking about and so should you. I am reading it as
> Mark's attempt at describing DQ...and Pirsig would be horrified if he would
> find his 'central concept' being dismissed in such a way. As Pirsig
> stresses: It is important to keep all concepts out of Dynamic Quality... .

Andre, I know I presented this in an earlier post.  Think about it
this way: a metaphysics is a description, by definition.  Therefore,
one can replace the word metaphysics with description.  It would seem
that you are horrified by how Pirsig describes DQ.  Is he dismissing
himself?  Dynamic Quality IS (I repeat IS) a concept.  It is two words
that refer to something.  Just like Big Dope is a concept.
>
> As far as describing Quality (as it is understood within the MoQ) is
> concerned...have a go Ham...without making a fool of yourself.

Mark:
Are you saying that Pirsig is making a fool of himself?  How many
times does he use the word Quality?  He creates two descriptive
adjectives for Quality (static and dynamic).  BTW, Ham is interested
in describing Value, which for me is the same thing as Quality.  I
said "for me", Ham so don't get upset.  He has a book on this.
>
> Ham:
> As a free-thinker with a different approach to Value (which Pirsig equated
> with Quality), may I offer some clarification that may help to resolve this
> dilemma?
>
> Andre:
> On second thoughts...don't bother Ham. What does it mean to be a
> 'free-thinker'? LoL.

Well, Andre, that is a good question.  How about you find out for
yourself.  Give us something creative about Quality that is not
something Pirsig said.  Think you are free enough to do that?
>
> Hasta la pasta.

Das vi danya,
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