[MD] Intent as Quality

[Jan Anders Andersson]

Hi Mark

Definitions and words are just patterns. However, THIS is Quality, in very High Definition:
http://www.metoperafamily.org/opera/barber-of-seville-rossini-english-tickets.aspx

Wish you a good quality laugh.

J A


27 sep 2012 kl. 01.10 skrev 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
> 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