[MD] Intent as Quality

[118]

Hi Ron,
Thank you for your response and bring in a discussion on Intent.  I hope
you don't mind that I changed the subject line accordingly.  Several years
ago I posted (perhaps too much) on this topic.  Now seems like a good time
to revisit it.  I do not think I have changed my opinion on this, so I
won't bother to read what I posted on this previously.

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:31 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> [Mark prev:]
>  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.
>
> [Ron]
> I think we can say that "meaning" is Quality and that what be mean by
> "better"
> is "clarity". To clarify, to render more intelligible is to increase
> usefulness in
> action and I am entering into the realm of meaning itself because it seems
> all
> our theories revolve around the logical structure of actions, how they fit
> together
> why they are useful and successful. Now you have used the term "intent"
> and I think the explanation begins to turn toward that subject if we
> pursued
> the explanation of Quality further.
>

Mark:  Yes I agree with you on the analogy of meaning.  I have posted this
many times in the past.  The problem with the "clarity" you present is that
it is steeped in SQ.  As far as I can tell, SQ is a series of dead ends;
terminal stepping stones, if you will.  In my opinion, clarity comes from
submerging oneself completely in the Quality paradigm.  This can be done by
following the basic principles in spirit, and then seeing what happens.
 The writings of Pirsig can be a useful place to start.  This is of course
done using a subject-object distinction, for that is the Western way.  Once
the doorway is opened, the specific words which Pirsig uses can be left
behind, otherwise we are always just standing in the doorway.

In my opinion, Intent can also be analogized to Quality.  For Intent
implies free-will (and much more) which every single thing in the universe
is endowed with (see Lila).  We cannot say "the intent of Quality" for that
would be saying the Quality of Quality.  Although Quality is given the
appearance of a proper noun, it is not.  Quality is more of an event, which
is what Intent is.  One cannot point to Quality, just like one cannot point
to Pride.  What is revealed of Pride, or Quality, is the presence of what
it creates shadows of.  To use the often quoted analogy of Plato and the
Cave, what we create through SQ are shadows on a wall.  The curse of where
Western thought has brought us is to forget why those shadows are cast.  As
such, SQ dominates Western thought (just see all the quotes which are
presented in this forum as "proofs").

Just as an aside, Intent is also a big part of Toltec philosophy.  In
Taoism, "The Way" can also be considered as "Intent", in so far as how we
understand "intent" in the West.  The Noble truths of Buddhism can also be
translated as Intent.  There is much more, including my favorite subject of
Alchemy, but it is clear to me that MOQ is professing old wisdom.  As I
have said to Ant (perhaps too many times), the subject matter of MOQ is
nothing new, it is a new translation.

>
> [Mark]
> 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.
>
> [Ron]
> We all know what we like and dislike, our like and dislikes develope
> experience. The more complex collection of prefferences are result
> of successful actions and this is where it meets the explanation of
> evolution
> by a natural selection. Getting back to the "metaphysic" topic of MoQ
> regarding dogma, if what we mean by an "MoQ" is a clarity in meaning
> then it's aim, it's "intent" IS the virtue of inquirey. One might argue at
> this
> point that the drive towards inquirey is an evolutionary drive towards
> stability,
> But that may be a different topic.
>

Mark:
So far as I can tell, it is difficult to separate our attitudes towards
something from experience itself. Experience is something we create, just
as we create our likes and dislikes.  Certainly successful actions can
bring about a strengthening of preferences (opera has never worked for me
despite having been to over fifty operas, so I suppose those are
unsuccessful attempts).  In addition, I can logically deduce that there
must be a ground on which to create experience.  This would be our
"fundamental nature" for lack of a better term.

I really do not want to get into evolution by natural selection, for this
implies that there is something intelligent which is doing the selecting.
 Certainly Nature can be intelligent, but this will only detour our
conversation.  Having said this, do you think that natural selection is
evolving?  If so, then what is the Selector for that?  Is gravity of light
evolving?  If so, what would those evolutions be in reference to?
 Interesting philosophical topic that I have discussed at length with
friends of mine.

Suffice it to say, I not believe evolution as it is presented to be a very
convincing argument.  And no, I am not a Creationist or an Intelligent
Designist, I am a Qualityist.

>
>
> [Mark]
> 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.
>
> [Ron]
> Exactly, I'm heading toward the separation of belief and meaning, belief in
> the regard of being formed by the static rigid body of cultural knowledge
> "What we believe we already know" but the reflection apon the meaning
> behind those beliefs, those values, their clarification, and placing that
> clarity
> into action into success in intent is living life at it's best.
>

OK, we can head that way, if you want.  I would shorten your statement to
"what we believe".  If not, your statement becomes a paradox.  Knowledge is
creation.  Belief comes before such creation.  I would extend your usage of
belief, to include that which comes before meaning.  For meaning is what we
create.  Belief requires no creation.  I believe I exist, and I am fine
with not proving that.

I have analogized such "belief" as "Truth" recently since I can logically
show (as I have), that the two can be analogized.  As such, knowledge
becomes an ever growing web of human experience, which comes from the
"window of truth"   We now have the capability to store large quantities of
this knowledge so we get the illusion that we are getting more intelligent.
 But we should not confuse complexity with intelligence. (God forbid a
solar flare would destroy this digital knowledge since we have little back
up at present.  This may have happened thousands of years ago where only
stones remain, but this is another topic outside of MOQ).



>
> .
> 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
>