[MD] Intent as Quality

Thu Sep 27 23:41:10 PDT 2012

Dear Mark

It's just a good experience to go to the opera sometimes. Nice patterns there. Less truth.

I can sometimes have a good laugh at the barber and Don Basilio.

J A

27 sep 2012 kl. 23.24 skrev 118:

> Hi Jan Anders,
> I assume the laugh comes from its being in English.
> 
> I am not quite sure what you mean by "just" below.  The patterns we create can be grand.  Are you suggesting that there is more?  If so how do you know?  What is Quality to you outside of patterns?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Sep 27, 2012, at 6:44 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 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