[MD] Descriptions of Quality

[118]

Hi Ham,

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>Ham:
> I would add that "Quality" as redefined by RMP corrupts the common aesthetic
> attribution of the word by inferring that a proprietary human appraisal can
> have an independent existence of its own.  Choosing a name is an author's
> license, of course, but such ambiguity in philosophy leads to confusion and
> misunderstanding of the fundamental concepts, as is repeatedly demonstrated
> in this forum.

Pirsig's introduction of Quality is meant to get one thinking along a
different line of awareness.  It is not meant to spoon-feed any one on
"Truths".  That you find it ambiguous is a good thing, at least that
will get you wondering what he means.  From ambiguity comes
self-realization.  Any philosophy that pretends to be the way things
are is not my cup of tea.  You ask us to accept a lot in Essentialism,
yet you accept nothing of MoQ.  Is this not a bit one sided in terms
of a discussion?
>
> I happen to prefer the word "Value", which Pirsig equates with Quality,
> chiefly because it is also a verb.  This allows us to express a statement
> such as, "Chocolate is good for John because he values it."  But neither
> Value nor Quality connotes Reality,  Nor can a subjective assessment serve
> as the progenitor or Creator of the universe.

I could say that value, as you use it, is an expression of Quality.
It is not the creation of a human, but is instead an interpretation by
a human.  I am sure I am sounding like a broken record here.  But
maybe it will sink in.  It may be useful to step back for a moment and
view humans as participants, not as an anointed species.  If you don't
think that a monkey knows a good banana from a bad banana, then you
are in complete denial.  Yes, our system of valuation may be more
complex, but it is still the same thing.  Since you are expecting this
from me, I will continue to say that our valuation is no different
from a river choosing a path down to the ocean.  It is all basically
the same thing.  We are not somehow more special.  Everything is
special.  Peace and love and all that jazz...  Raise the world to the
level which you hold yourself before it is too late (doomsday music in
the background).  Repent I say!  Praise Quality!  That last statement
is supposed to be followed with a quiet "val-yew" (as in amen).  Just
put that in to satisfy those who think I am so righteous.

Once we separate ourselves from all else, we are lost.  The rapid
destructiveness of man is unprecedented in the history of species.
This is because man thinks he is different and somehow the king of
nature.  He creates a false distinction between man made and natural.
He tries so hard not to blend with this world, (something which Taoism
teaches us to do).  Man is so incredibly afraid of death, that
anything goes.  He becomes isolated in his little ego.  It is all
natural, every last bit of it, man and his creations included.  It is
all part of a tendency (The Way).  If one wants to be a positivist,
then one can say that it is all towards "betterness".  Of course one
can also be a negative person and think otherwise; think, that is,
that everything else is simply an accident just marching along.  We
each have that choice to make since we have free will.  Ham are you
and the rest of us cast adrift in this existential world, or are we
together with everything else?  Are we alone exceptional, or is
everything exceptional?

So tell me, Ham, are you in or are you out?  Are you with this world
or are you separate from it?  Can everything project value, or only
you?  Are you part of it, or are you in charge of it?  Do you make the
rules, or do the rules make you?  Essence is amused by your arrogance.
 It is all the same to Essence.  Essence does not play favorites.

>
> If you don't like the word "Essence", then by all means come up with your
> own name for ultimate reality.  But don't trash the ontology of Essentialism
> simply because Essence seems "meaningless" to you.

I like the word Essence.  Quality is Essence.  It just has a higher
descriptive quality than simply saying Essence.  But, what's in a word
anyway.  Why don't you just call it Quality if it is all the same to
you?  It would still be your Essence.  Trust 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