[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,

> Thank your for your response.  You seem to be misunderstanding what I am
> presenting, and trying to put me in a box of your imagination.  Maybe I am
> not clear, so I will try once again below.

Okay. 

> Mark:
> So far as I can tell, you are saying that it is a good idea to put Quality
> first.  Am I correct in this?

Yes. 

> Mark:
> No, this is not a contradiction, never has been, never will be, it is
> common sense.  We created the concept of matter, or as you put it "what we
> call matter".  There is nothing confusing or contradictory here.  Perhaps
> it is you that find it contradictory.  Most of us don't.  Ideas are what we
> pattern the world with.  Do you think an electron sees out patterns?  No,
> we created them.
> 
> Sure, we can also say that the neurons in our brains (matter) creates
> ideas.  It all depends on the point one is trying to make, and how useful
> the concept is.  This is rhetoric, not truth that we provide.  What we
> present depends on what we are trying to say.  Ideas creating the idea of
> matter may be good in one case (although a little redundant), matter
> creating ideas may be good in another case.  You cannot categorically say
> that one way is always better than another way. This is communication, not
> proclamation.  This is sharing, not incarcerating.

Okay I think I can mostly agree with that.

> Mark:
> Yes, Quality not Truth.  But do you know what this means?  That the focus
> of MOQ is on Quality is a good idea, as you would say.  That what is true
> is a good idea, is a good idea, you would also say.  But what are you
> saying?  Are these your rules to bring you meaning?  I am fine if they are,
> but you need to elaborate.

There are no 'rules' here. There's just what's good and its good to say that truth is high quality intellectual patterns.

> I do not throw out Truth, never have, never will.  It is you that throws
> out Truth by making it relative.  This is no longer Truth, it is a
> conditional statement.  Let us at least use the same sense of truth.  What
> you are proposing is not Truth.  Truth is where you come from to make the
> proposal to begin with.

I 'come from' Quality to make any proposal.  Truth comes later...

> I have explained my position on what I consider to be Truth very clearly.
> I would claim that "Quality not Truth" to be a Truth.  For you, it is just
> a good idea.  Even that it is a good idea is a good idea.  Where do you
> start from?  Are you swimming around in the relative nature of ideas?  Drop
> this relativity stuff, it will lead you nowhere.  Start at the beginning.
> What do you believe in?  What is Quality for you?  This is not just simply
> an academic exercise, this is reality.

Right. I agree - its not an academic exercise. Everyone knows what's good from the moment they're born.  Quality isn't nothing for me. Quality is before me and you and everyone and everything else. 

> Mark:
> My statement was simply to warn you not to believe that I found science to
> be objective, for it is not.  We create everything in science.  It is
> creation, not discovery.  We form patterns where there were none.
> 
> I believe it is you that misunderstand MOQ, since you seem to be stuck in a
> relative world of ideas.  This position seems rather flimsy to me.  For you
> MOQ is a good idea.  You do not explain what makes it a good idea.

What makes the MOQ a good idea is how it represents experience beautifully.

> You are the one completely discrediting Truth.  Truth and Quality are two
> different animals.  You cannot compare a zebra to a snake and say that one
> is above another.  You are completely missing the message of MOQ, something
> that I keep trying to explain to you, but you twist the argument to make it
> seem like I am saying something different.  Try reading what I say several
> times before you respond.  Your gut reaction is completely off base.

My 'mistake' to say that quality is above truth must also be one of Robert Pirsig..

"Plato hadn't tried to destroy aretê. He had encapsulated it; made a permanent, fixed Idea out of it; had converted it to a rigid, immobile Immortal Truth. He made aretê the Good, the highest form, the highest Idea of all. It was subordinate only to Truth itself, in a synthesis of all that had gone before" 

"Truth won, the Good lost, and that is why today we have so little difficulty accepting the reality of truth and so much difficulty accepting the reality of Quality, even though there is no more agreement in one area than in the other."

> Mark:
> What are you talking about "changing the value of truth"?  Truth is truth.
> Are you saying that one truth is better than another in some kind of
> absolute sense?    How can you say that I am changing the value of truth,
> when it is you who are saying that truth is a good idea?  Your truth is not
> truth at all, your truth is relative, which makes it conditional.  You
> sound like a lawyer, saying "if this truth is good, then that truth is
> not".  Truth is truth, how do you go about comparing them?

You go about comparing them based on how good they are. Are you saying you don't really know what's good? If so, that's a strange position to take.

> What do you mean that true ideas are always as good as they used to be?
> You are not making any sense here.  There is a difference between truth
> and a good idea.  Again, you are stuck in some kind of relative world where
> anything goes so long as we think it is a good idea.  You are making up
> truth.  Is your "true ideas as good", a truth, or is it an idea?  For you,
> Truth is whatever you want it to be.  The 1960's are long gone.

Is truth(high quality intellectual patterns) whatever I want it to be?  Is quality whatever I want it to be? 

"What made Rigel mad was that into this scene come intellectuals like Phaedrus who say it's unintelligent to repress biological drives. You must decide these matters on the basis of reason, not on the basis of social codes."

This is the charge of Rigel to Phaedrus.  A lot of hippies could take ZMM and say that what they did was right because 'everyone knows what's good'.  But there's more to quality than that.  This is why Pirsig wrote Lila... "Does Lila have quality?".  In response, Pirsig has *ranked* quality based on how evolved it is.  Social values are more evolved than biological ones.  There is value in social quality.   We can say that someone who values biological quality always at the expense of other higher qualities, is being degenerate and evil...

Everyone knows what Quality is.  And everyone knows social values just as well as they know biological values.  Those who choose biological values always at the expense of social values are being degenerate and evil.    This isn't some 'truth' I'm making up.  This is true for all people, in all time periods, everywhere.  There is nothing 'relative' about it.

> The MOQ presents an idea, by your logic.  You say it is a good idea that
> Quality is fundamental.  The proof would be in how you use this idea in
> your daily life, something that you do not want to talk about; so I just
> have to take your word for it.

The proof is in how well it explains our experience. This is something I'm happy to talk about.

> If you make the statement that it is "quality, not matter or truth which is
> fundamental", you need to support that statement.  You cannot claim
> ignorance and say "that's just the way it is".  That is not philosophical,
> that is a religion.  A quality Intellectual Pattern is more than just a
> pronouncement.  You can shout it from the rooftops all you want, that that
> does not give it quality.

No the shouting doesn't give it quality, the content of the shouting and how well that shouting explains our experience is how good it is.

> Mark:  David, you have created an analogy called Quality, and an analogy
> called Truth which reflects your intuition of these things.  You start with
> the analogy, and then rank them (somewhat incorrectly).  Quality is not
> above Truth.  This would be like saying a red car is above a car.

From ZMM:

"Plato hadn't tried to destroy aretê. He had encapsulated it; made a permanent, fixed Idea out of it; had converted it to a rigid, immobile Immortal Truth. He made aretê the Good, the highest form, the highest Idea of all. It was subordinate only to Truth itself, in a synthesis of all that had gone before" 

"Truth won, the Good lost, and that is why today we have so little difficulty accepting the reality of truth and so much difficulty accepting the reality of Quality, even though there is no more agreement in one area than in the other."

In a metaphysical sense, Quality ought to be above truth. This isn't how it is with SOM.   SOM places truth first and doesn't understand Quality. This is because Quality is fundamental, not truth.  This is the mistake of SOM to always put truth first.  That's not the best way of seeing things.  The best way of seeing things is with Quality above all else.

> Mark:  Please explain what you mean by Quality begets ideas.  This seems
> like a pronouncement without explanation.
> 
> NO!  The ghost of reason is not Quality, it is SQ.  You are very confused
> here, and perhaps we need to start another thread on this topic.  Reason is
> something we create.  Even reasoning about Quality is a ghost, can't you
> see that?!
> 
> Paradoxes are enormously valuable, since they give us an impetus to get out
> of them.  Your ideas about ideas is one such paradox.  You seem to have no
> ground to stand on in your world of ideas .

If you refuse to see Quality as the source of all things as you appear to do, then yes it would appear that I'm talking a paradox.

> What are you talking about "haunting SOM"?  Are you analogizing Quality to
> SOM as some kind of evil ghost?  What is with these analogies?  What do you
> mean by haunting?  Please be clear with what you present, because you seem
> to be simply making pronouncements without any support.  How does Quality
> "haunt" SOM?  Is it scary?

It was to Plato. He didn't like it.

It haunts SOM:

"Reason was to be subordinate, logically, to Quality, and he was sure he would find the cause of its not being so back among the ancient Greeks, whose mythos had endowed our culture with the tendency underlying all the evil of our technology, the tendency to do what is "reasonable" even when it isn't any good. That was the root of the whole thing. Right there. I said a long time ago that he was in pursuit of the ghost of reason. This is what I meant. Reason and Quality had become separated and in conflict with each other and Quality had been forced under and reason made supreme somewhere back then."

To repeat - "Quality had been forced under" - it had become the ghost of reason…

> NO, ranking is not imperative in MOQ, that would make it relativism.  We
> have already gone down that path, read some of dmb's stuff. You are making
> MOQ into some kind of parlor game, where we have curtains we cannot look
> behind, and lucky winners based on their "goodness".  I am just waiting for
> you to pull out the ouija board to "contact" Quality.  Quality is not
> relative, it is absolute.  Things that fall under MOQ are not relative
> either.  There is nothing to make them relative to.

When there is more than one static quality they can always be made 'relative' to one another and compared and ranked based on how good(evolved) they are.  This does not make quality itself 'relative'.  Quality is fundamental.  How can I 'prove' it? I can't.  Any truth accepted 'proof' comes after quality not before it..  The only way you can 'prove' Quality is by showing the harmony it produces. 

> Yes, Bohrs idea is an idea.  How do you judge how good it is?  What has it
> done for you lately?  So far as I can tell, not much has come out of it
> except for more math.  Perhaps I am wrong.
> 
> The scientific method has no place in truth.  The scientific method
> develops constructs, not truth.  It presents models for reality, not truth.
> If I present you a model for a new high rise development, would you call
> it true?

Yes, if it is any good I would call it a true representation.

> OK, you stick to your relativism, and see where it gets you.  I suppose you
> will make MOQ relative to something else.  Where do you stop?  Everything
> you write becomes simply relative.  There is no place that seems to be
> grounded.

It is 'grounded' in Quality.  Everyone knows what Quality is.  Some people however, such as yourself, refuse to acknowledge that...

> Even Quality is relative for you.  What is it relative to?  What
> is an idea about Quality relative to?  It is an idea.  Who decides what
> idea is good and which is bad?  Is there a committee for this?  Who is in
> charge of doling out merit points for goodness?  Is there a big billboard
> that shows todays #1 idea?  Do we get to vote on it?  Do we get to throw
> some off the island?

Everyone know what quality is.  Quality is not relative. The reason why we use different words to describe what quality is depends on our experience.  If we had the same or similar experience then the words we use to describe quality would be the same or similar.  Quality is fundamental and not relative.  

> You are swimming in a whirlpool that is dragging you down.  There is
> nothing to grab hold of to save you since everything is relative to
> something else and all being pulled down together.   It is all going down
> the tubes, because nothing is fixed.  Everything is ranked according to
> everything else, by the master ranker.  This ranker is rank from ranking.
> The ranker needs to be ranked but then the new top ranker is ranked in
> turn.  Rankers have forgotten what ranking means because they are
> self-ranked and have no ranking to rank.  The ranker becomes the rankee and
> is ranked by the ranker who was rankee. The swirling gets faster, and no
> matter how much ranking is done, there is no way out.  Rankers have nothing
> to rank themselves with except other rankers who are using the same ranking
> system to do the ranking of rankers.  The rankers have become wankers.
> 
> I am trying to give you a way out.
> Thanks, David, please excuse the rhetoric, it is simply for effect and not
> to be taken personally.

That's fine Mark, none taken.  I hope that you value what I write and try and understand where I am coming from as I extend this same courtesy to you.

> If these discussions are not fun, then why have them, right?

Well, one could argue that we still should have them regardless of if they're fun because they make us better people.  Becoming a better person isn't always fun.  It's hard, painful work.

Thanks Mark,

-David.