[MD] Moving on

[118]

Hi Andre,
It seems we are moving towards understanding here.  Perhaps it is the
use of words that is the problem.  So as I listen to My Bloody
Valentine in the background I will try to continue with some opinions.

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark to Andre:
>

> Mark:
> By stating that Quality has Lila you are separating Quality from Lila.
>
> Andre:
> No way Mark! If 'something' has 'something' how can it be different other
> than by analogy? Phaedrus' intent is to make clear the distinction between
> DQ and sq. Unlike Marsha, please do not confuse them. I will repeat the
> words of Pirsig again (in his effort to explain Quality) to make the
> distiction between the two as clear as possible: Quality is the
> 'undifferentiated flux' (James), the 'undifferentiated aesthetic continuum'
> (Northrop),the Buddhist 'Nothingness', Lao Tsu's 'Tao'.

OK, but Quality is not different from Lila, that would just not make
sense as I see it.

As you know, I have continually tried to explain to Marsha that the
distinction between DQ and SQ is essential for MoQ.  I have done this
perhaps more than anybody.  So you are preaching to the converted
there.

The use of words such as "the undifferentiated aesthetic flux" is
misleading, in my opinion, for that is not what Quality is.  We could
call DQ that.  The Tao may be more accurate, but the Tao is more
fundamental than Quality.  The Tao means "the Reason", or "the Way".
>From the Tao comes the one, which is Quality.  The Buddhist
Nothingness is a different concept altogether as I have tried to
explain to Marsha many, many times.  So, we need to be careful not to
confuse things here.
>
> We are IN that and the reason and ability for us to reason and argue amongst
> ourselves that we are in that is because we are static
> representations/manifestations of that which is ineffable. Like ice and
> water... we are 'in' that. We are the cubes...responding to water (if you
> will)

Yes, our static manifestations are also Quality (ice and water are
different phases of the same thing).  The division comes after
Quality.  The presentation of SQ is for purposes of convenience in
order to explain Quality as a metaphysics.  It is a conceptual
difference.  Since we can only discuss things through such
representations, we must always assume that when we give DQ any kind
of definition, it is for the purposes of convenience, not to label DQ.
 The same goes for SQ, for SQ cannot describe itself, a finger cannot
point at itself.

I have presented the concept of phases as analogy for the
differentiation within MoQ.  I often prefer the scientific metaphors
since I am most familiar with those.
>
> BUT to confuse the cubes with the water, in other words to confuse or
> conflate DQ with sq (as Marsha does) is to create a mess of sq and
> denigrates DQ to something it ain't.

I agree.  I think what she is trying to say (maybe....) is that both
are Quality.  However, often she seems to be trying to short-circuit
MoQ and its endeavors.  Or just maybe she has a different agenda for
participating in this forum.   For, in MoQ SQ and DQ are made
different for a reason as you know.  At least she doesn't explain
herself very well, and I don't often read the quotes she puts forth.
>
>
> Andre:
> The MoQ is resolving the duality Mark. This is of fundamental importance to
> the entirety of Western philosophy...and those theorizing activities I
> mentioned earlier (in the post to you and Joe) e.g anthropology. And now
> wonder why Phaedrus stresses this point (Dusenberry) because there is a
> marked differentiation between investigating in- and organic patterns of
> value and social and intellectual patterns of value and the brilliance in
> still being able to unite them within a metaphysics, which is what Pirsig
> did.

I fully agree that it resolves the duality.  However, it often seems
from what some write that the duality persists.  This is what I
interpreted from your statement that Quality "has" Lila.  Now I think
I know what you meant (maybe).  The levels can also be seen in terms
of phases.  There are of course many other analogies which do not even
bring in the Level paradigm, which I have presented in the past.  The
idea of Levels is not essential for MoQ in my opinion, whereas the DQ
and SQ appears to be.
>
> Ethics (morality...i.e Quality) and science ( and here you can fill in lots
> of other disciplines) integrated into a single system...which is the MOQ.
> (end of chapter 12)

Yes indeed.  And being a scientist I fully understand this.  I have
often spoken out against Scientism.  The way people like to bring in
science as if that is the final analogy.  I suppose I am a wayward
priest in that discipline.  But many who I work with understand that
Science is simply another metaphysics; another manner in which to
describe "what is".  By understanding this, we do not get trapped by
the truths of science.  This allows us to do research much more
effectively.  As you know, the paradigm of "Evolution" is one such
place where people get stuck.  I am not religious or into intelligent
design, and there are many better ways to see reality than through the
prism of "evolution".  In fact I have stated many times that Pirsig's
use of that term is completely misleading.  Quality is not subjected
to some "outside" force of evolution.  Quality creates change.  It is
the source (again referring to the quote in Dutch).

I have translated Chapter 12, through a variety of means.  There is
text, and there is subtext (like why did Pirsig choose the words he
did).  There are a variety of ways to do this as I have spoken of in
the past.  Words are words, we give them meaning when we read them.
>
> Mark:
> I believe I am consistent, and I am more than happy to move on.  We just
> have different approaches.
>
> Andre:
> So long as we attempt to manifest ourselves as best we can, in other words
> as long as we 'serve' Quality then no path is alien or wrong.

I have never claimed any different.  We are in the act of creation,
not destruction.  This can get messy just like being in the middle of
the march of science.
>
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