[MD] Intent as Quality

[118]

Hi Jan-Anders,

Thank you for your input on this subject.  I find this whole concept of not
describing (or defining as some people say) Quality to be a bit
nonsensical.  If this were true, we would have a word (Quality) that cannot
be said to mean anything, yet Pirsig devotes two books to the subject. When
we bring up the word Quality we have a meaning in mind.  Yet, there seem to
be those in this forum who claim that no meaning can be given to Quality.



We use words to exchange ideas.  These ideas are of something that is
important to us.  The words we use to describe Quality are meant to convey
meaning to the reader.  That is why we post in this forum, to discuss a
metaphysics based on Quality.  In order to discuss Quality, we must use
words of agreed on definitions.  In order to discuss Quality we must agree
on what it is that we are discussing.



In its purest sense of the word, Quality is a manner of viewing existence.
It is a paradigm through which one can make meaning of the world.  This is
explained to great length in Lila. The whole purpose of MOQ is to provide
meaning to Quality using metaphysical terms.  What this brings, is an
awareness of existence which is outside subjects and objects.  This must be
something we all are aware of; otherwise we would be discussing Quality as
if it were some foreign viewpoint.  One has little to discuss about skiing,
unless one has been skiing.  We are discussing what we are aware of through
the prism of Quality.  This is really simple.



It is clear from ZAMM, that to see the world as Quality, one enters into
the realm of insanity.  Therefore, it could seem that trying to define
Quality is an exercise in insanity.  However, this is not the case as is
shown by MOQ as presented in Lila. Quality is defined so many times in
Lila, that the book should be banned according to some.



The little response provided by Jan Anders is completely useless in terms
of MOQ.  It says that one cannot define Quality in the course of a
conversation.  I have news for Jan Anders, there is absolutely nothing that
can be defined.  Try defining your dog (if you have one), and I will show
you what you have left out.  Definitions are merely agreements, words are
descriptons.  There is nothing binding about definitions except their
utility.  Quality is no different in it definability than anything else we
discuss.  The problem seems to be that nobody can agree on Quality.  All we
do is go around in circles doing our best not to talk about it, and somehow
deny Quality in MOQ.  This is completely absurd.



If I present an analogy between Quality and Intent, what I am doing is
saying that in my opinion, my awareness of Quality is similar to my
awareness of Intent.  Neither of these terms needs to be forcefully defined
so long as I make clear what I mean.  The whole purpose of such an exercise
is to bring meaning to Quality.  It is to allow others to see existence in
a new way; a way that brings more meaning and makes more sense than we
currently have in the West.  An awareness that we all have.  An awarness
that is free from SOM.



So, please, let's stop all this "non-defining" nonsense.  Let us get back
to MOQ and discussing Quality.  What words do you want to use to discuss
Quality?


How about it Jan Anders?  Got something of substance to say about Quality?
Tell us of your experience of your examination of the World as Quality.


Regards,

Mark





On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com>
wrote:

Hi Mark

If you don't mind I would like to split in here. Defining Quality is as
easy as defining a hole without mentioning what's around it, specially when
some says that it's all fluid.


>
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