[MD] Plato's Good

[118]

Hi John,
Well put below.

Here is my compromise.  There are two manners in which definitions can
be used.  The first one is to make Quality the definition.  This is a
dogmatic approach since it states that Quality is such and such, and
nothing else.  This is the approach that Pirsig warns against.  This
is a standard approach in Western thought which leads to much
confusion and confrontation about many things.

We accept the literal as if it is the thing in itself.  "Our God is
more righteous than your God".  While all along God is not definable,
it is an event.  It would be better to say that “my personal
relationship with the cosmos is more righteous than yours”.  That
would be fine since there would not be any God projection under which
to fly ones’ flag.  We pretend that a painting of the landscape IS the
actual landscape in this defining manner.  We objectivise an awareness
and then think that such object IS the awareness.  This is the
bewitchment induced by the intellect and propagated through words.  It
is reading words in a book and forgetting that such words are printed
on a page.  Without the page there would be no words.

The second manner in which to use definitions is as a mode for
communicating ideas.  Each of us has to understand the words that are
being used in such communication or else we meet the same fate as the
tower of Babel folk.  We are building a tower here, and there is no
reason to give up before we even start.  The truth of it is that many
understand the beguilement of words; others not so much (hence the
quotes begetting quotes).  We use words to express something much more
fundamental than the conveyance method of such expression.  We build a
house with tools, but the tools are not the house.  When we realize we
are using words as tools, and not as bricks, then we become free of
the static appeal of conversation.

Since many of us are aware of the tendency to replace a thing with a
word for the thing, we have a key to getting out of this cage (ever
notice that lines on a page seem like bars on a cage?  We refuse to
look through the cage and only see the bars).  Amongst those of us
with this awareness, we need not worry about "defining" Quality, for
how else are we to discuss it?  For the rest of them who are
worshipping at the intellectual alter with sacrifices of logic as
fundamental truth, they can do whatever they want.  I do not think
they will get anywhere.  Besides, they define Quality all the time.
Paradoxically they think that they are not doing so, and try to impose
the most strict definition of all which is: Thou shalt not define
Quality.

'Nuf Said.
Mark

On 5/9/12, ridgecoyote at gmail.com <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> dmb says:
>> Who "around here" has ever tried to make a fixed idea out of Pirsig's
>> undefined Quality?
>
> Ummm, everyone?  Since a metaphysics is a system of philosophical
> definitions, it's in the very name you bandy about -  "MoQ".  Could just as
> easily be called "DoQ".  A self-confessedly ironic degeneracy.  All that's
> needs to ameliorate a bit would be a tinge of humility, compassion and
> caring and not taking yourself quite so seriously.  Too much to ask?  No,
> never mind. Already know the answer to that question.
>
>
>> Definitions are static and intellectual. The MOQ is static and
>> intellectual. Concepts are static and intellectual. If I can speak for
>> "folks around here", what we want is the proper use of terms and
>> intelligible expressions of ideas.
>
> And the final arbiter of "proper" and "intelligible"?  No, nevermind; don't
> tell me. I already know the answer to that one too.
>
> dmb:
>
> I think your charge is totally baseless and wholly without merit.
>
>
> John:
>
> Yup. I get that a lot from you.  Don't think I can do much about it neither.
>
> 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
>