[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[Horse]

Hi David

It's not often that I agree with Mark but I have to say that on this one 
that I think we do agree.
It's always been my understanding that Quality is our fundamental 
reality and that DQ and SQ are two different sides of the Quality coin.
So from this I find it hard to reconcile that Quality = DQ as this 
leaves a huge gap in our understanding of Quality.
I would agree that both Quality and DQ are undefinable but SQ must be 
defined in order to create a coherent metaphysics.

Perhaps I've missed something somewhere along the line and you could 
explain what it is I've missed.

Cheers

Horse


On 24/09/2012 08:03, 118 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:51 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>>   >
>>> Mark: We get into an interesting situation here if this is what is said.
>>> Yes, "we all know what is good", we can say there is truth to such a
>>> statement.  If however we relegate truth to high quality patterns and say
>>> that such a depiction is good we end up with a paradox.  There is no way
>> to
>>> separate truth from good, or Truth from Quality.  They become exactly the
>>> same thing.
>> Logically, yes, you're right.  But Quality is before logic.  If you keep
>> trying to subordinate Good to try and understand it intellectually, you
>> will never do so because it is before your ideas about it.. Quality is
>> direct experience itself, before Mark or anything else for that matter..
>>   The only way you can agree with this is by *seeing* the harmony created by
>> placing quality first.. If you don't do that, then you will never agree or
>> understand.
>>
> Mark:  What do you mean Quality is before logic?  As far as I can tell,
> Quality is not some thing.   Quality is where it happens.  As I remember,
> Quality is made of two parts, DQ and SQ.  If Quality = DQ, then where does
> SQ come from?  If instead Quality = DQ and SQ = SQ, then what is DQ + SQ.
>   Do we have a name for this?  If Pirsig said that DQ is Quality (ZAMM) in
> 2005, what happened between 1992 and 2005?  Was it not the same thing in
> that period?  Pirsig is trying to explain a difficult idea.  He is trying
> to make it easy on us.  I already know what Quality was in the '70s.  I
> read all about it.  Please do not provide quotes as proof of anything until
> you understand DQ and Quality.
>
> David, I am not sure what you mean by direct experience.  Experience is
> something we create in response to that outside.  There is no "Experience"
> floating around all by itself.  Maybe you are using the term experience in
> a manner I am not used to.  Is there experience before we experience it?
>   When we say "I experienced a freezing lake", this means that our bodies
> got cold when we jumped in the lake.  Your "experience" is something else
> all together, as far as I can tell.  Please explain what you mean by
> "direct experience".
>
>>> The solution is to say that , "yes, they are exactly the same thing".  In
>>> this way the dichotomy presented by Pirsig is a false one.  He creates an
>>> enemy of truth, and does not replace it with anything different.  I have
>> no
>>> problem with this result, since it is we who create distinctions where no
>>> distinctions exist.  Such distinctions are made simply for rhetorical
>>> purposes and fall apart on logical examination.
>> I disagree.   Pirsig does replace truth with something different.  He
>> replaces truth with Quality.  Once one does this, things become fabulously
>> more coherent than they previously were..
>>
> No, David, Truth and Quality are two different conceptual beginings.  We
> cannot replace one with the other.  When somebody is coming from the
> paradigm of Quality he can place Truth within Quality.  If somebody is
> coming from the Truth perspective, he can place Quality within truth.  To
> somebody embedded in Truth, Quality is just an attribute.  The question is,
> which is the better perspective for you?  I choose Quality.
>
>>
>> I disagree.  It is better to create two 'universes' of Quality than one.
>>   It is better to say that Dynamic Quality is before all things and cannot
>> be defined, while all our definitions and attempted definitions of DQ are
>> sq.  The reason why it is better to create these two universes is because
>> of how beautifully such a description describes our experience.  The
>> emphasis here is on the beauty.  Where does that beauty come from? It is
>> not mine any more than it is yours.  It is before all things.. It comes
>> from DQ, like all things..
>>
> David, I am not sure what you mean by "defined".  When you say that DQ is
> before all things, that IS a definition.  We have to define things in order
> to talk about them.  If it is undefined then it could be before, after,
> between, above, below, and all of the above all at the same time.  You are
> defining DQ specifically as being before all things.  If it were undefined
> you would not say that.
>
> Definitions are simply used to have a conversation.  There is nothing
> inherently evil about definitions.  In fact they are very useful.  What
> Pirsig says is to not confuse the definition with the thing itself.  Do you
> confuse a book about the French Revolution with the actual French
> Revolution.
>
> With SQ (some thing) coming after DQ (no thing), you are saying that
> something comes from nothing.  I am fine with this and ask you, how do you
> propose this happens?
>
> More on your thoughtful responses, tomorrow.
>
> Cheers,
> 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
>>
> 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
>

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa