[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[118]

Hi David,

Thanks for the input, I will try to keep my emails more focused.
Typically I write these during my work day when I have a break, so
they are not all written in a single sitting.  The main topic is the
difference between DQ and SQ.  For you, everything falls into the
category of SQ simply because we are discussing it.  The only way in
which to be aware of DQ is not to think.  Think about this:  The act
of thinking as you experience it, IS DQ.  The act of knitting is not
the scarf, the scarf is just the final result.

Let me give you an analogy.  A journey is a set of steps.  At each
step you would claim that the journey has ended because each step
represents a completion.  Therefore, one is never on a journey at all,
but just completing one step after another.  In this analogy the
journey represents DQ, and each step is SQ.  Even though we take
steps, this does not mean that we cannot conceive of the journey.
Just because we discuss in SQ terms, does not mean that the big
picture is SQ.  This is a three dimensional world, not a flat world of
SQ.  Open up your mind, my son.

On Sep 5, 2012, at 6:30 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mark,

> Anyway - This is what most of your writing says:
>
> "THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF STATIC QUALITY IS DYNAMIC QUALITY!!"

Mark: I am not even sure what you mean by the phrase above.  What do
you mean?  Static Quality embodies the patterns which we create.  We
could say that these are first created as experience and then travel
up to the intellect where they become static.  Do you disagree with
this?

We have a split between DQ and SQ for the purposes of metaphysics.  It
would be nonsense to try to equate the two, don't you think?  Why
would you even suggest such a thing?  I am supposing that this is what
you may mean by your all caps above.  It would be like saying that the
fundamental nature of steps is the climbing them.  Don’t be
ridiculous.

What you are doing is stating THERE IS NO SUCH CONCEPT AS DQ BECAUSE IT IS SQ.
>
> An exposition of this I've pasted below:
>
>> Mark:
>> By way of example:  Light is described as either waves or particles.  Do
>> you really think that light is a wave or a particle?  Of course it isn't,
>> that is just a description for it!  Light is neither waves or particles.
>> This form of description falls out of the math.  The math did not create
>> light.
>
> The description does not fall out of the math. It falls out of the observation of the inorganic waves and particles.   Our maths attempts to explain those observations in an intellectually coherent way but the math is not the inorganic values. And I'm sure this last sentence is not enough to change your mind…

Mark: Sorry David, but it does fall out of the mathematical model used
to interrogate light.  Don't challenge me on the science.  That we
create waves and particles is an example of static quality, which is a
REPRESENTATION of light.  Such a representation is created through us.
 You seem to be confusing DQ and sq here, but please don’t extend that
confusion to what I am presenting.  So far as you are concerned, THERE
IS NO SUCH CONCEPT AS DQ BECAUSE IT IS SQ!!
Waves and particles are not light, they are descriptions. What do you
mean by the inorganic values?  We assign value to light.  Are you
speaking from a mystical point of view, here?  If so, then the mystic
perspective is all yours.

>
>> Mark: Again, I will ask you to give me
>> the relationship between DQ and sq so that I can understand where you are
>> coming from.
>
> I will start by highlighting the mistake you make in this first division :  You are stuck in looking at the MOQ from one perspective only.  That is the perspective of the Mystic.  You will deny this for all mystics deny they are such because they do not like definitions such as 'mystic'.  Like all mystics you think that the only really true thing is DQ and that sq is not as important.   You constantly point to DQ. I get that.  But metaphysics is not so interested in just DQ. The MOQ has been created to look at the value of static patterns.  Metaphysics does nothing for the mystic.  Metaphysics as a bunch of ideas takes the mystic *away* from DQ.

Mark: Are you kidding me!!  I am a scientist!  If I don't see value in
sq, then I am out of luck.  I am not quite sure what you are
projecting, but you are way off base.  Do you know how many
intellectual descriptions of Quality, DQ and SQ I have provided?  Many
of these come from static ideas that I am just reiterating.

What is God’s name is the mystic perspective?  What do you experience
from the mystic perspective that gives you this idea?  You seem to be
confusing things here.  You have created a static quality of the
mystic perspective, and are thus polluting and degenerating.  You are
attempting to encapsulate all of existence into the world of SQ.  This
is just plain wrong, and you know it.

Tell me, David, what is metaphysics describing?  It seems to me that
your mystic cannot result in any new branch of philosophy, because it
is all downhill from the moment of discussing it.  How then do you
explain Buddhism, Taoism, and Christianity.  How do you explain the
enabling of mystics who follow those teachings?  Those all came from
mystical contemplations, of what was written.  If somebody wants to
describe their experience, it does not destroy those experiences, it
promotes them.  It gives others a chance to enter into that world.
You seem to think that your world is the only one that exists, and
that everything is related to SQ.  Sorry, Bud, but you are wrong.
Stand up and look at the view!  Pull back that SQ curtain which you
have hung around you for your SQ shower!

The mystic can be approached through SQ.  That is the power of the
intellect.  I have tried to explain this before.  You argue that SQ
and DQ are completely separate and have no interaction, I argue that
it is much more meaningful to show that they do.  You are stuck in the
land of words and concepts which is exactly what MOQ is trying to get
us out of.

>
>David: All you are interested in is the 'fundamental nature' - There is more to the MOQ than this.  Words point to more than this.   If I point to the value of the intellectual level or the value of the social level or the value of the biological level or the value of the inorganic level, then all you seek to do is point to where it is from and what it is created by.  I know this.  The MOQ says this.  But the MOQ created these static quality distinctions for a reason.  It created them to look at them intellectually.  To discuss them intellectually.  It gave Dynamic Quality a name so it could discuss it intellectually.   This is not valuable Mystically.  The intellect destroys the mystic nature of the universe.  The intellect breaks up the undefined nature of the universe and turns it into fixed metaphysical meanings.  This is good intellectually, but degenerate mystically.  Below is some responses to some of what you have written..

Mark:  Jeeze, David.  Stop categorically stating what I am interested
in.  This is just silly.  MOQ  is about fundamental nature, but it is
also a way of life.  What kind of awareness of Quality do you have?
Don’t you agree that it has an impact on the way you are?  Or is this
something that is outside of philosophizing about existence?  Can you
only philosophize about what others have philosophized about?  That is
not philosophy, that is history.

Like I said, you have no idea what these levels represent.  The use of
levels is not new.  Try doing a little reading outside of MOQ for
this.  These levels are not created from anything!  They exist!  If
you go looking for their source, then you will be looking forever,
because we are the ones presenting them as metaphysics.  We created
them; they are part of the ghost of reason.

What do you mean by “valuable mystically”?  You are really losing me here.
>
> Mark:  Before I begin though, I would like to re-iterate the value in quoting Lila and ZMM.  If our ideas are not traceable back to these two books, then we might as well be talking gibberish.  If you disagree with Pirsig on anything he has written in Lila or ZMM then please say so because that is very interesting.  If not, please show me another quote which indicates that my quotation is wrong.

Mark: Sure that is fine.  As it turns out, all your quotes support
what I am saying.  We can go that route if it is more meaningful for
you.
>
>> Mark: Yes, the thought is static quality, but what creates that
>> thought?  Static
>> quality cannot create itself.  It is a dead end product, that is why it is
>> called static (Remember?).  We create static quality because we are not
>> static.
>
> We are static and create static patterns by responding to Dynamic Quality.   We are not Dynamic Quality. This is confirmed by Pirsig where he writes:
>
> "The MOQ says it[the self] is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality. "

Mark:  Yes, such Self when described through statistic patterns is a
collection of static patterns, so what?  This is the whole purpose of
static quality, that is to create something.  What you are saying, is
that the ability to create is SQ.  Let me tell you, there is nothing
static about it.

If we are static, then we cannot create static patterns by definition.
 An idea cannot create other ideas, people have to do that.  What do
you think dynamic means?  What do you think static means?  Don’t tell
me that a book can write another book all on its own.  You are
confused about what static quality is.  Try thinking about what those
words mean before you tell me that something static can create another
static.  The static is a product, not a process.

>> Mark:  My Self is No Thing.  Look for it and you will not find it.  I am DQ!
>> You may think you are SQ, but you are not.
>
> This is in contradiction to what Pirsig has written in Lila's Child:
>
> "The MOQ says it[the self] is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality."
>
Mark:  No, it is not a contradiction.  You are pointing to the Self as
represented.  This Self as something we create.  I am pointing to that
which does the creation of Self.  So please do not claim I am
contradicting.  I fully agree with what Pirsig states, he is talking
about static quality.  Such apprehension is the process of creating
static quality.  Do you agree with this?  How can the Self be static,
this just does not make sense, what is static about it.  It is only
when you refer to it that it is static, but that is not the Self, that
is just a REPRESENTATION, A PICTURE, AN IDEA, SOMETHING WHICH WE
CREATE.

>David:  You've been stuck? That's interesting.  Tell me more about that experience?

Well, I would have to go back to around 1976, or so.  It is a long
boring story, and I have discussed it in the past.  However, it was no
fun for me at a fundamental level.  Perhaps what you need is a little
personal upheaval.  You act so confident in what you know.  This stems
from ignorance, my friend.  You do not question the very premise of
what you believe in.  Be careful with that.
>

> David: Yes, that's right.  Our intellect describes the biological level.  I agree. This description is not the biological level.  I also agree with that.  A rare agreement.
>
> However, this goes back to the original issue of which comes first - ideas or matter.   The MOQ says that quality comes first, which creates ideas, which create what we call 'matter'.  However, it is a good idea to say that matter existed before ideas.  Therefore, it's best to say which comes first depending on context..

Yes, of course, because the whole thing is the creation of static
quality.  We create these patterns with our bodies.  It is our way of
interpretation.  We create this idea of matter it does not exist
outside of our creation.  Matter is an idea, it is something that we
have created in our heads in response to that which we connect to, get
it?  That is why it is a ghost, get it?  First we have to create it,
then the idea of matter comes into existence, get it?  Sure we can say
that matter existed before ideas, but that is also an idea, get it?
We are talking about the Ghost of Reason here, get it?  What we call
“matter” could care less what we see it to be.  This does not mean
that we are creating trees as we walk through a forest, we are simply
naming view as trees with some synaptic pattern in our brains.  What
we experience is the nerve firing in our heads, and not the trees.  We
call this nerve firing “trees”.  These trees do not exist as such
until we create them.   They don’t exist as trees at all.
>
>> Mark:  Well David, I can say the same for you.  You are stuck in SQ in some
>> two dimensional world.  It is you who need to confront this cage you are
>> making around yourself before it is too late.  MOQ provides the key.
>
> I am static patterns.  Everything I can call 'me' is static patterns.  However, I can respond to Dynamic Quality… this is confirmed by Pirsig where he writes:
>
> "The MOQ says it[the self] is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality. "

Mark:  Well David, let me ask you this:  If you are static patterns,
where do they come from?  You have misunderstood this quote in too
many ways from Sunday.  Give it some thought will you?

 Do you subscribe to the notion that static patterns come from other
static patterns?  If so, what is creating this progression?  If you
come up with a new idea, is this totally out of your control, and some
kind of Buddhist determinism?  Are you are robot without free will?
Free will is DQ.  I have it, don’t you?  Please reread Pirsig on this
subject.  When you say that “you” respond to dynamic quality, is this
a static pattern pointing to itself? This reminds me of the M.C.
Escher engraving of one hand drawing another hand which is in turn
drawing itself (see
http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/minitext/escher/big.asp?IMAGE=drawing_hands
).
You have no idea how much of you is DQ.  It is only on reflection that
you create SQ.  We only exist in the moment in which there is no
reflection.  Even the act of reflection is springing new in each
instance.  This is DQ.  It is the engine behind SQ, which it leaves in
its wake.  You are that engine (and no, this is not supposed to
represent SQ).

You seem to be suffering from the “persistence of memory”.  Take a
look at the Dali painting:
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79018, and take
note on how everything is so flat.  This is your two dimensional world
of SQ.  There is nothing dynamic in your world.
>
>> The intellect is a translation system.  It is what converts DQ to SQ and is
>> also DQ.  The act of creating thoughts is DQ, that is why such a process is
>> dynamic, and it cannot be pointed to with SQ.  I am talking about that
>> interface between DQ and sq.  This "first division" as you say.  Perhaps
>> you have a better interpretation of this interface between DQ and SQ.  If
>> so, I would like to hear it.
>
> The intellect is not DQ.  The intellect is defined as that which manipulates things independently of that which it represents.. That's it.  Dynamic Quality, on the other hand, cannot be defined.  As Pirsig writes:
>
> "Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity."

Mark:  Come on David, use your brain!  The intellect is that which
defines.  You cannot travel full circle to say that by defining, it
becomes a definition.  One is active and one is passive.  BTW,
everything is outside “definition” (as you use it for Quality).  Give
me a definition, and I will show you where it is incomplete.
Definitions are conventions so that we can have conversations, nothing
more.  We cannot destroy something by defining it unless we think the
definition is complete.  We cannot define the ability to define.  That
would be pure logical nonsense!
>
> David: That's right.  We create static patterns in response to Dynamic Quality.  I agree with that.  But we are NOT Dynamic Quality.   We respond to it, yes, but we are not 'it'.

Mark:  Where exactly does this “we” reside?  All you can do is CREATE
static patterns of it, that does not mean that is what “we”  is.
These static patterns are just REPRESENTATIONAL.  A painting is not
the actual landscape.  Next time you use “we”, think about what you
mean by that.  What is this “we”.  If it is purely objective (static),
then it is not that.  The “we” (or the “I”) is not a static
representation, it is what creates the static representation.  Clear?
>
>> Yes, MOQ points to more than DQ, it also points to sq, because it is the
>> metaphysics of Quality, not the metaphysics of dynamic quality.
>
> Again a rare case where we agree.   The MOQ is as Pirsig writes - a logical absurdity.  A contradiction in terms.
Mark:  Well, yes, since logic cannot point beyond its own creation.
That is a given with logic.
>
> That's right. I won't, which I why I practice Zen meditation.  But when I am on a philosophical discussion board, I respect that these cages are unescapable.   To pretend otherwise is a form of purity.
>
> This is confirmed by Pirsig where he writes:
>
> "But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics are made of. Purity, identified, ceases to be purity. Objections to pollution are a form of pollution. The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life."

Mark:  If the cages are inescapable, then how can we write about them?
 Is not some perspective required.  Is not the perspective that all we
are providing is descriptions OF something, not the thing in itself?
The fanatic believes that an Ideal is Real, not something that we
created.  You seem to be such a fanatic, but I am not.   I can see SQ
for what it is.

Here Pirsig speaks of FIXED metaphysical meanings.  If we understand
that metaphysical meanings are not FIXED, but simply examples, then
where is the pollution?  It is the reader of such metaphysical
meanings that makes them fixed, like the fact that we are constantly
eating the flesh of Jesus.  Please tell me that you are not one of
those…  There is only pollution to those literal people who believe
that words written are more than examples.  These people are dogmatic
and simply present what is written as God’s truth.  Remember, meaning
is in the eye of the beholder.  For what is good, and what is bad…?
>
>> David
>>
>> Mark: No, the intellectual is derived from the mystical.  One can approach
>> it by ignoring the intellectual, which wraps up the mystical such that you
>> cannot see it.  The mystical is like a spider that is hiding in the
>> elaborate web it has spun.  They are not two opposing forces.
>
>
> Right, you constantly point to the source of all things.. including the MOQ. I get that.  But I am not here to discuss the source.  Discussing the source is like drinking through a straw.  I prefer to experience the source of all things, and discuss Metaphysics.  Metaphysics doesn't ignore the intellectual, it embraces its degeneracy yet has an entirely different value of its own..

Mark:  Give me a break!  What I am saying is that the intellect makes
patterns.  These patterns are made from something.  It is that
something that I am pointing to.  Once the patterns are made, it is no
longer mystical.  That is the pollution you are speaking of, although
it is only pollution to those of simple understanding…

I am not here to discuss the source either.  I am trying to explain
the difference between DQ and SQ to you.  Metaphysic IS the
intellectual, it does not simply embrace it.  Can a river embrace
itself?
>
> We use words - not just to point to DQ - Although that is all you use them for.    This is the whole point of my original post.   Words point to more than just DQ.   They point to static quality patterns as well..

Mark:  Words are static quality.  They represent static quality
patterns.  They do not point to them, unless one says “see that
rattlesnake?”  Words feed on themselves and then bewitch people to
think that words stand on their own.  Have you ever heard somebody
speaking in Tagalo?  Do those words stand on their own.  No they are
just sounds.  The meaning comes from the person listening.  The
meaning you get from my words is so far off-base, that I feel I am
speaking a foreign language.
>

> I cannot think about 'DQ', for I would find myself thinking about nothing in particular.  Dynamic Quality isn't thought! Dynamic Quality is before thought.   That is why we cannot talk bout it.  It's before talking.   I can experience DQ however.  I get that things come from DQ. But *ALL* of *my* experience is static quality not DQ.  DQ isn't mine any more than it is yours.  It is ugly to think that you own DQ and that it is you or me or any thing else.

Mark: Thinking IS DQ.  You can think about thinking can’t you?  I
don’t own DQ, I am DQ, that is a big difference.  I cannot own the
“I”, for that is what I am (I am what I am).  Try to get this
straight, it is simple ZEN.
>

> The intellect destroys *real* understanding for the ultimate reality is DQ.  This is what you shout at the mountain tops about Mark.

Mark:  The  intellect  IS understanding.  How can it destroy itself.
How do you define understanding?  What is REAL understanding?  What
are you talking about?  What have you been drinking?  You can dream
about your ultimate reality all you want, but sooner or later you will
wake up.
>
> "THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF STATIC QUALITY IS DYNAMIC QUALITY!!"
>
> We can even shout it together…  But there is more to life than this..  There is intellectual quality which is created in response to DQ.  There is social quality which is created in response to DQ.  There is biological quality which is created in response to DQ.  There is inorganic quality which is created in response to DQ.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.  I am not doing any shouting.
>

> The light is inorganic quality.  Our intellectual descriptions describe this inorganic quality using maths.  The math attempts to 'represent' this inorganic quality.  Which comes first? The ideas or the objects?  This is where it gets complicated….

Mark:  “Inorganic Quality” is an idea.  Therefore, you are saying that
light is an idea, which I totally agree with.  Math is another idea.
One idea can represent another.  Objects are ideas too.  So, which
came first, the idea or the idea?
>
> So everything subjective doesn't exist and is actually DQ?  What about the objective is that actually DQ too?  Yes of course you will say…

Mark:  As soon as you call something subjective, it is not DQ, so my
answer would be that it is a false question.  The subjective does not
exist in DQ, that is SQ.  Just remember, we create SQ, whether it is
with words or with actions.  This is our ability to create.   Don’t
get all caught up in your paradoxes, it is quite simple.
>
>>
>> Mark: OK, Quality becomes DQ.  So then why call it the metaphysics of
>> Quality, smarty pants?
>
> Because we break up that Quality into a Metaphysics.  We break up undefined Quality into DQ and sq in the MOQ.   Why does Pirsig do this?  He does this so that he can put aside the notion that Quality should be left undefined.   That is, he wants to put aside the idea that quality should be left undefined and goes ahead and defines a static quality metaphysics full of definitions.. The way he puts it aside is by putting aside the whole concept of Dynamic Quality into a term called 'Dynamic Quality'.  Once he has acknowledged that it is the source of all things, he is then able to proceed on and talk about static things which are *not* Dynamic Quality.

Mark:  You did not answer my question.  Pirsig splits Quality into DQ
and SQ right?  So how does DQ then become Quality?  What happened to
SQ?  What we discuss in MOQ are both SQ and DQ.  Both of them together
make up Quality.  We don’t talk about SQ and Quality, because that
leaves out DQ.
Yes, SQ is not DQ by definition.  So what?  Are you saying that you do
not want to talk about quality?  Is it one of those forbidden topics
that requires secret initiation?  Instead of DQ and SQ, how about if
we talk about Quality?  Are you game, or do you think a lightning bolt
will come down and destroy Quality?  Are you a Quality fearing man?
>
> That's why we call it the MOQ. Because both qualities exist in the MOQ not just undefined Quality as it did at the end of ZMM.

Mark:  Nothing is “definable”, all we have are conventions that
everybody agrees on.  Definitions are not based on anything except
agreement so that we can discuss things.  I don’t know why you make
Quality so special.  Define a goat to me, and I will show you how your
definition is incomplete and only an example of a goat.  What is wrong
with having examples of Quality?  This does not encapsulate it, any
more than a song “defines” music.
>
>> Definitions only create a cage if you let them.  That is what Pirsig is
>> saying.  You on the other hand are all for creating these cages by giving
>> power to definitions.  Definitions are just words.  Words do not stand on
>> their own since they require a reader to bring them to life.  Bringing
>> words to life is DQ.  What results from this birth is SQ.
>
>
> Words don't exist without a reader.  'Bringing words to life' is an intellectual or social or biological or mystical response to DQ…   The words are not DQ.  They are static *responses* to DQ.

Mark:  How can a response be static?  What do you mean by static?  Are
you saying predictable?  Are you saying we have no free will?  Perhaps
static means something different to you than me.
>
>David:  Hang on, degeneracy results when one thinks that a definition is more than a definition?  I agree with that definition but you think that definitions can capture DQ.  For instance you that think that I am DQ.  I can be defined.  I have a name David and can be described...  Yet you claim that I am DQ.  Everything I have ever done can be defined.  There is no more to me than these definitions.

Mark:  I don’t think definitions can capture DQ any more than my
description of a shark can go out and capture that shark.  Yes,
everything that you have done can be defined, but that still does not
define the “I” that is doing it.  This “I” is not static quality,
unless you are describing it.  The “you” that is describing it, is
still undefined.  It cannot be approached with logic or any other form
of SQ.  Stop putting yourself in a box that does not exist.
>
>> DQ can be considered the source of shadows, while Quality is both the
>> source and the shadow.  Remember that DQ and sq are manner in which to
>> divide Quality.  Both together they become Quality.  Or perhaps you do not
>> believe in the "first division".
>
> Disagree - Quality - the same as DQ is the source of the shadows.   Pirsig knows that he is being degenerate by defining a static metaphysics.   This ruins the ultimately undefined nature of the universe…

Mark:  What exactly are you ruining?  Please explain this to me, I
have no idea what you are talking about.   You seem to have some
divine principles in mind.  What exactly are these such that we cannot
discuss Quality?  Are you saying that we should not think?  Are you
one of these anti-intellectuals such as Mao?  Are you searching for
some pristine animal instinct?  Do you not want to be human?
Why do you have two terms for Quality?  Let’s not start changing terms
for purposes of expediency.  The Quality I speak of is the Quality
which Pirsig speaks of.  Don’t get confused and start going in
circles.  Let us keep our terms consistent.  If Pirsig wants to call
Dynamic Quality “Quality”, then where does that leave us with the
split?  How about if you call Quality Quality, and DQ DQ?  Is that too
much to ask?
>
>David:  "'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity."

Mark: Yes, logic pointing towards itself is absurd, that is where
paradoxes come from.  This is very simple.   Metaphysics is something
we create.  Quality is something we create.  So neither can be
considered “of” the other.  But, since we are just conversing, you
know exactly what MOQ means.  Let’s not get all semantic and logical
about it, it is just a phrase, not a decree!  A goat’s leg is not a
goat’s leg, because the leg is the goat, get it!  You don’t have a
goat on one side, and then a leg on the other.  It is just a manner of
speaking.  I really don’t want to get into some semantic squabble.
>
> David In response to Mark’s asking him how he views Quality: This is a philosophical forum.  Philosophy, by definition, is a bunch of ideas.  If you don't want to talk about ideas, then I point you in the direction of a social club, or a mystic club.   Ideas are intellectual.  Metaphysics is intellectual. Metaphysical discussion boards discuss ideas.

Mark:  Are you saying that James never incorporated his beliefs into
his philosophy?  One cannot separate one’s philosophy from one’s
personal awareness.  If you do, then you are no longer philosophizing,
you are simply playing some semantic game.  Philosophy is more than a
bunch of ideas, it is the manner in which we see the world.  We see
the world and then create ideas.  You are trying to create some
aseptic library here.  Don’t forget your face mask, somebody may
actually write what they believe in and soil the whole place.  So I
ask again, what is it about Quality that brings you to discuss it?
>
David: The MOQ has been espoused originally by Pirsig.  It did not
exist before Pirsig created it.  Remember the laws of gravity in ZMM.
Ideas before people thought of them, didn't exist.

Mark:  Then why does Pirsig say that Quality is the same as Tao?  MOQ
is a phrase used to represent discussions based around a certain
manner of looking at existence.  This manner has existed for 5,000
years.  What Pirsig has done is bring this into the 20th century.
Don’t tell me that you think that Pirsig is the first one to have
thought about these things.

David, you are trying to dig a very deep hole for MOQ, and bury it.
Don’t you think that others should be introduced to MOQ and the
awareness it brings.  One does not know ice cream until one has tasted
it.  I suggest you taste Quality before you presume to discuss it.
All you can do is state that discussing it is useless towards being
aware of it.  You probably go on and on about ice cream flavors that
you have never put in your mouth, since by tasting them you destroy
them.

Best regards,
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