[MD] just fishing (for truth)

[118]

Hi Ron,
Thank you for your response.



On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 3:16 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>  Mark:
>   If Quality is of no interest to you, then you can tell me so.
> Is Quality something you are interested in discussing?  Does Quality matter
> to you?  Or are you more interested in Truth?
>
>
> [Ron]
> Quality is all that we are discussing Mark, it's all what any discussion
> is about.
> Firstly in my response I am going to try to avoid coming off like I'm
> pontificating
> because that is what comes easily to this type of inquirey when all I'm
> attempting
> to do is clarify my previous responses to you which as it seems to look
> from the type
> of questions you are asking, that I indeed have a difficult task. I dont
> want to be the typical
> arse and just say "read the books" nor do I want to come off like I'm
> trying to teach you
> anything or do the typical dick move of saying that you are sooo off base
> that it's no use
> even trying. So I'm going to try and pick a "best" place to start with the
> most general
> meaning of what I'm trying to say so please dont get upset if I snip your
> questions down to
> the ones I feel have the most impact on helping along the dialog, lets
> begin by what
> you are most confused about.
>

OK, thanks.  I really appreciate that.  I never take anything personally.
 Sorry to make you task so difficult.  I will ask questions for
clarification to make sure I am on the right page.

>
> [Mark]
> I am most confused by your last statement: "A metaphysics based on Quality
> is the development of meaning in experience it is the perpetual inquiry of
> what are the best things in life."  So, a metaphysics based on Quality is
> one of creating meaning.  How is this any different to any other
> metaphysics?  It also seems that you think MOQ is for determining what is
> best.  How does this work exactly.  I am simply asking you to further
> expand on your statements so that I can understand what you mean by
> Quality.
>
> [Ron replies]
> I chose the term "develop" over "create" because I wanted to emphasize
> that what
> I see MoQ doing is clarify meaning, which is how it is different from any
> other metaphysic.
> That is also how it helps to determine what is best. For certainly gaining
> a better
> understanding of what we believe we already know is more valueable than
> not.
>

Mark:  OK, we can go along this track.  At least I can tell how you get to
where you are going to end up with this.

You make an interesting point.  To "clarify meaning".  I assume that such
meaning is related to Quality.  Perhaps you should start even farther back
than where you do.  What exactly do you mean by "meaning", and what does
"clarification" mean in this case?  All metaphysics are meaningful, but I
think you are going down into the realm of meaning itself.  This should be
an instructive discussion for me, I am here to learn you opinion.  Could
you structure your "meaning" for me in a logical way?  I have provided such
structure in the past.  If you are working towards an optimal form of SQ
where it comes to Quality, I am all for it.

When you say "how [MOQ] helps to determine what is best", you are
suggesting that through a metaphysics we can determine what is best.  I am
fine with this line of philosophical rhetoric. It can be said that the hand
of MOQ is one of providing structure to Quality, thus making it a
metaphysics of Quality.  We will have to somehow clarify how this fits in
with the idea that we all know what is good and what is bad.  I do not
believe we want MOQ to turn into a dogmatic religion where we can not ask
questions of it.

This phrase "what we believe we already know" seems a bit out of place in
terms of MOQ.  Could you explain what you mean by that, and how it relates
to Quality?  This is no trap, I am genuinely interested in this perspective
of Quality.  I assume you are separating "belief" and "meaning", although I
do not quite see how, with the little you gave me.  Perhaps you could
provide a bit of logic there.  So far as I am concerned, we create
knowledge.  Therefore to believe that we created such knowledge is a bit
redundant.  All that we know is what we have created through the intellect.
 That is the nature of "knowing" so far as I can tell.  I can't imagine
that there is "knowledge" floating around that we have not created.  I
don't think such a thing would be called knowledge.  What I present is in
line with Pirsig's Ghost of Reason.  Which could be another conversation,
which may be useful at some time.

Ron, what I was hoping you would do is present how a view through Quality,
results in the metaphysics which you are presenting.  Pirsig explains this
view through Quality in Lila.  How does a view through Quality determine
what is best, or clarify meaning?  How is it different from our current
view of determining what is best?

I have been presenting my understanding of Quality for several years, but I
have still to grasp your understanding.

Please stay as simple as you want, but try to be more specific.  When you
use a phrase, please let me see the logic behind it.

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
>