[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,

>> What do you think about this?  Is what we call 'trees' actually 'nerve
>> firings', or are the 'trees', something else?
>> 
> 
> This is a very good question, and one that requires philosophy as opposed
> to science.  There is no way to scientifically prove that the activity of
> the brain is directly connected to our thoughts.  We have examples of why
> we think this may be a valuable manner in which to construct such an idea.
> I won't go into these except to say that the visualization of brain
> activity seems to "correlate" with certain thoughts that the subject is
> experiencing.  This may or may not be causal, or be proof that such brain
> activity is the actual thought.

I think you still miss the point.  It is *Quality* first, then everything else.   Is it a good idea to say that matter is first and before ideas? Yes.  Is it right to say that ultimately, ideas create matter? Yes.  

Traditionally, this is a contradiction.  Truth does not allow contradictions to exist.  So in SOM, such viewpoint is illogical and not allowed and we must determine which idea is 'true' or throw out the idea of truth altogether.  However, in the MOQ, we are interested in what is good, not what is true.   It is for this reason that we can say, ultimately, ideas create what we call 'matter'.  But it is also good to say that matter comes first.

Within the MOQ the focus is on quality not on truth.  But does this mean that what is 'true' is meaningless? No, what is true is what is a good idea, there is no need to throw out the idea of truth or to stress the importance of analogies as you do.

> And so, my example was for illustrative purposes, and I will not claim any
> truth therein.  

 There is no need to claim that there is a problem here with what is true.  It is not the concept of truth that is the problem here.  The problem is how we treat truth.  The MOQ shows that we need not place what is true ahead of what is good but there is no need to discredit or devalue the concept of truth.  This sentence above points to the crux of your misunderstanding of the MOQ.

> All of science is descriptive, that is its purpose.  In
> order to approach this from a philosophical or even metaphysical point of
> view, we must rely on analogy.  

There is no need to change the value of truth in this way.  You need not change what is intellectually meaningful from 'truth' to 'we must rely on analogy'.  True ideas were just as good as they always were both pre and post MOQ.  The important thing is that we recognise how good ideas are and rank them accordingly depending on the situation.   It is quality first, truth second.

> The science I present is just that.  That
> is, our "understanding" of one discipline is applied to another discipline.
> The sum total is considered to be knowledge, which we create.  The
> assumption is that we create this knowledge from something other than
> knowledge itself.

The incorrect assumption of science is the SOM one which states that matter and truth is fundamental.  The MOQ states that it is quality not matter or truth which is fundamental.  

> Knowledge can be considered as a dead end (SQ), unless we apply this
> knowledge to expand on our awareness.  This expansion is a dynamic process,
> and comes before SQ, and can be considered to reside in what I term
> "creativity".  Through simple subtraction, I call this process DQ.
> Abstract thinking, as that which is controlled by the intellectual level,
> can be considered as one such process, and therefore falls into the realm
> of DQ.  Please remember that just because I have put this to words, this
> does not make such DQ into SQ.  Words are simply methods for communication.
> What is being communicated lies outside of words.  An analogy would be to
> say that the musical instruments involved are not the symphony.  The
> instruments are just a means to convey the symphony.

Your emphasis on analogy is unnecessary and not as good as an emphasis which places quality as fundamental and truth as secondary but still very valuable.  What is true is high quality intellectual patterns. This is confirmed by Pirsig:

"In the MOQ.. truth is described as high quality intellectual patterns." - Lila's Child.

> If we approach this from a philosophical point of view, we can draw
> analogies.  We could say that there is a "similarity" between a fire and
> the smoke it creates.  We find it useful to propose that such fire and
> smoke are part of the same process.  This process is the combustion and
> release of matter.  We are quite certain that we experience thoughts.  We
> are pretty certain that drugs can affect these thoughts.  This implies that
> the drugs are acting on something.  Reason leads us to envision that such
> "affect" is a physical process.  Therefore much in the same way as equating
> smoke with fire, we can equate thoughts with the physical.  This may or may
> not be useful depending on the point somebody is trying to make.

I agree.  We *can* equate thoughts with the physical depending on how good it is at the time.  It's good to remember that ultimately, it is an idea that matter is fundamental.  However, it is good to think that matter is fundamental depending on the situation.

> What you point to is the Ghost of Reason, when you speak of ideas begetting
> ideas.  I think that this may be a more fruitful discussion to bring
> meaning to MOQ.  The Ghost of Reason is a powerful analogy within MOQ.  So,
> before I start going on about it, perhaps you can give me your sense of
> this Ghost of Reason, and what it means within your understanding of MOQ.
> Please keep in mind that Pirsig is very specific by saying "what we know
> as matter".  He is pointing to idea, and matter as we create it through the
> first step of creating experience.  Does the Ghost of Reason have any ties
> to DQ, or does it exist as a bubble on its own?

Ideas do not beget ideas.  Quality begets ideas.  It is Quality and then everything else, including ideas second.  How valuable an idea is depends on how good it is.   The ghost of reason is Quality.  In ZMM Phaedrus could sense there was something not quite right with our application of reason but he couldn't figure it out..  Quality was the key.  It haunts SOM to this day. SOM is full of paradoxes.  How do these paradoxes exist? They exist in a world which only values truth above all else.  Are paradoxes any good? That is, do they represent our everyday experience beautifully? No, they do not.  Therefore paradoxes aren't very valuable or true and thus not worth worrying about..

> Please remember that Bohr's observation, is a description, and cannot be
> considered as true or even real.  This same observation can be dealt with
> by many descriptions.  So let us not be fooled by science and its claims to
> be providing Truth.  Science is simply ideas.

Bohr's observation is just as real as every other idea ever thought of.  *How* real it is depends on how good it is.  This is why ranking is imperative to the MOQ. We use ideas based on how good they are.  Science is very good at determining truth.  What is true is high quality intellectual patterns.  The scientific method is an excellent way of determining what is true.

> Finally, we cannot assign a causal correlation between ideas and that which
> they are describing in a cause-effect manner.  Ideas are ideas, and what
> they seek to describe are not ideas, but reality as we deal with it.  I
> don't want us to get stuck with a brain in a vat argument.  It is important
> to break free of the notion that all is idea, or idealism.  To not break
> free simply results in a paradox, where Quality is idea and can not
> therefore result in idea as a separate thing.  We need to explore beyond
> the world as idea.

I agree.  Quality creates ideas.   Therefore, ideas are intellectual patterns of value.  That is, they are static quality which has captured the undefined quality.  Ideas which are based in quality and not SOM idealism - whereby everything is an idea including the idea of quality - can be ranked based on how good they are. The better an idea the more true it is.   True ideas are the most intellectually valuable ideas there are.  This is what I am here to discuss...  High quality intellectual patterns.

> Ranking is useful, but not imperative to MOQ.

Ranking is imperative to the MOQ.  The whole structure of the MOQ is based on ranking one value over another.  All else being even - intellectual values are better than all other static values.

Thanks Mark,

-David.