[MD] The need for quality

Dan Glover daneglover at gmail.com
Sat Sep 2 20:30:04 PDT 2017

Wes, all,

I'm unsure what you strongly disagree with. That the MOQ states there
is no true reality? From Lila:

"Historically mystics have claimed that for a true understanding of
reality metaphysics is too "scientific." Metaphysics is not reality.
Metaphysics is names about reality. Metaphysics is a restaurant where
they give you a thirty-thousand page menu and no food."

"The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had
called "Quality" in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece.
Quality doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without
definition, ahead of definition. Quality is a direct experience
independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions."

"Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that
there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these
things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable, and know­ able, or
there isn't any metaphysics. Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind
of dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside
definition, this means that a "Metaphysics of Quality" is essentially
a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity."

A logical absurdity, yes. In this sense, Robert Pirsig defined static
quality but kept Dynamic Quality concept free. So no. Pirsig did not
define exactitude as in absolute truth. More from Lila:

"There's a principle in physics that if a thing can't be distinguished
from anything else it doesn't exist. To this the Metaphysics of
Quality adds a second principle: if a thing has no value it isn't
distinguished from anything else. Then, putting the two together, a
thing that has no value does not exist. The thing has not created the
value. The value has created the thing. When it is seen that value is
the front edge of experience, there is no problem for empiricists
here. It simply restates the empiricists' belief that experience is
the starting point of all reality. The only problem is for a
subject-object metaphysics that calls itself empiricism.

" This may sound as though a purpose of the Metaphysics of Quality is
to trash all subject-object thought but that's not true. Unlike
sub­ject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist
on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be
the ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of
things-that which corresponds to the "objective" world-and all other
constructions are unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the
ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of
truths to exist.

"Then one doesn't seek the absolute "Truth."

"One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of
things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future
this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until
something better comes along. One can then examine intellectual
realities the same way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not
with an effort to find out which one is the "real" painting, but
simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are many sets
of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have
more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of
our history and current patterns of values."

Let's stop here for now. If you are still feeling disagreeable, please
specify why.


On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 1:28 AM, WES STEWART <wesstt at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Hello Dan;
> I disagree strongly, Pirsig defines an exactitude, Andrew is there, he is making the world a better place,he is a quality thinker. Quality is the reality, if I can look at my twenty year old work boots or hockey skates that is a static pattern of quality, in 2017 we have something entirely different.
> From: "Dan Glover" <daneglover at gmail.com>
> To: "moq discuss" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2017 12:08:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality
> Wes, all,
> I'm pretty sure the MOQ says how there is no 'true' reality. I think
> it was John Carl who said someone developed a mirror to show a person
> their 'true' image. Only if you stop and consider how we view reality
> through the lens of our own personal history, it becomes apparent what
> is true for one person isn't for another.
> Interacting with others is not biological quality but rather social
> quality patterns. That isn't to say social quality is composed of
> biological beings, however. Rather it is the relationships existing
> between people which comprise social patterns. So it behooves us all
> to take care with who we interact no matter the circumstances.
> Biological quality has nothing to do with intellectual quality.
> Meaning and purpose are intellectual patterns which can indeed rely on
> comfort and money. What's the old saying? It is hard to remember how
> you're original intention was to drain the swamp when you're up to
> your ass in alligators. In other words, when a person is beset by
> poverty, their primary goal in life is to feed house and clothe their
> family. Not doing philosophy.
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:01 PM, WES STEWART <wesstt at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Hello Andrew and Dan,
>> There are two realities that we feel. The intellectual reality and our biological reality. Pursig defined the only true reality, and he was right, you have to bring morality and classical scientific thought together. Its not all about the physics of bowling balls and the trajectory of a missile that are the only things we can measure.
>> We can measure honesty, fairness, respect and kindness, its not subjective, and is inherent and part of our reality.
>> It is difficult to build quality into ones own biological life, because it is highly dependent on those who surround you, the ones you interact with. It would be very difficult for a World War ll concentration camp prisoner to find meaning and purpose from his biological side, however it is possible that quality was found from the higher intellectual side, because meaning and purpose, like you have already said Andrew, does not rely on comfort level or money.
>> Money could have easily bought your way out of a concentration camp at that time; according to the utmost scholar of holocaust studies Raul Hilberg.
> http://www.danglover.com
> 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


More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list