[MF] MOQ: valuable or not?

[Muzikhed at aol.com]

Kevin wrote:

According to the Metaphysics of Quality, as I understand it,  the
Metaphysics of Quality exists for people who judge it to be  valuable.  It
does not exist for people who find no value in it.   What I'd be interested
in talking about is why some people find value in it  and why some people
don't.

Anyone interested?




Sam wrote:
Doesn't Pirsig argue that it is the 'highest quality explanation  available'? 
I'm 
not sure he'd run with the idea that its existence is  dependent on whether 
it is 
seen as being of value or  not.

Ted writes:
Kevin, I'm still quite interested in why some people find value in the MoQ,  
while others do not. Initially, I thought I agreed with Sam's notion...I think 
 Sam meant that Pirsig might think the MoQ has a lot of  value, regardless of 
the lukewarm acceptance or critical snubs, for  example.   But on further 
thinking, taking you more literally, I  would agree (and Pirsig might?) that the 
MoQ could fade from existence  (at least for this time in history) if there is 
not enough recognition of its  value to 'keep it alive'...     That explains 
Pirsig's  warm remarks for the people who are essentially nurturing 'his 
baby', the MoQ  (Intro to Lila's Child?).  Sort of a warm & loving gesture, I  
thought.  Hmm.
 
Again, I'm quite interested in exploring the Question of why some value the  
MoQ... and now I've written several attempts at it ... so hang on, buddy.   
Still a hot topic, here.  However, I'm wondering how to approach it.   It seems 
I want to tell my life story to explain why I DO find value, ... and  I'm 
wondering if that's going to work.  It doesn't get at the people who  don't at 
all, and it would take a lot of effort on my part! 
I just don't have a quick answer yet.  But I'm open to ideas on  how to start.
------------
Kevin in an earlier thread, you quoted Pirsig:
 
" One can imagine how an infant in the womb acquires awareness of
simple distinctions such as pressure and sound, and then at  birth
acquires more complex ones of light and warmth and  hunger. We
know these distinctions are pressure and sound  and light and warmth 
and hunger and so on but the baby  doesn't. We could call them
stimuli but the baby doesn't  identify them as that. From the baby's
point of view,  something, he knows not what, compels attention. This
generalized "something," Whitehead's "dim apprehension," is
Dynamic Quality. When he is a few months old the baby studies  his
hand or a rattle, not knowing it is a hand or a  rattle, with the same
sense of wonder and mystery and  excitement created by the music
and heart attack in the  previous examples.

If the baby ignores this  force of Dynamic Quality it can be speculated
that he  will become mentally retarded, but if he is normally attentive
to Dynamic Quality he will soon begin to notice differences and  then
correlations between the differences and then  repetitive patterns of
the correlations. But it is not  until the baby is several months old that
he will begin  to really understand enough about that enormously
complex  correlation of sensations and boundaries and desires called
an object to be able to reach for one. This object will not be a  primary
experience. It will be a complex pattern of  static values derived from
primary experience.


Once the baby has made a complex pattern of values  called an
object and found this pattern to work well he  quickly develops a skill
and speed at jumping through the  chain of deductions that produced
it, as though it were a  single jump. This is similar to the way one
drives a car.  The first time there is a very slow trial-and-error process
of seeing what causes what. But in a very short time it becomes  so
swift one doesn't even think about it. The same is  true of objects."

then Kevin, you said:
"The baby in this  description looks like a machine.  And so I ask myself if
Pirsig may be  missing something.

It seems more correct to me to credit love with  human development.  But
then value and quality would have to derive from  love not the other way
around. "
--------------
 
Ted replies:
This just amazed me, that you said this description looks like a  machine!
It seems so human to me, and not machine like!    
  How would you describe the experience of a human's pre-birth  development, 
what words would make it soul less like a machine ?  How could  quality derive 
from love (even in the womb?)   What precisely do you  mean by "credit love 
with human development"?
Do you mean humans develop because of love?  
--------------------
 
There was an earlier thread today, by Steve who was responding to  Marsha:
 
You're talking it seems, of the TYPICAL 'High & positive quality'  concept of 
love, as in male/female [or same sex] 'extreme' liking of the other  person 
and ideally of each other.  What if one was an abused [sexually,  physically or 
mentally] child and HATED the actions of a parent/guardian, yet  throughout 
one's life, is still able to [honestly] state, that they 'loved'  their abusing 
parent, despite these actions?

I tend to lead toward Steve,  here.  If you imagine love to be a lot like c
aring, I think it's easy  to see that one can care for, and love, something that 
is not positive.   The act of loving, and caring, seem to be always positive 
acts, almost  by definition.  
 
  Thus, it is quite possible to love (a verb) something you  'hate', in fact, 
that is the advice of Ghandi, and also Jesus, if I have it  right.    It may 
be the trick is de-verbifying 'hate'.  It's a  bit harder to love something 
you are actively "hatin' on."  First let it  be.  Then love it.

The description reminds me of my exploration into a seemingly endless  field 
called "learning to play music"    by  substitution... 
 
 
Once the guitarist has made a complex pattern of  values called a
"chord", or a "lick", and found  this pattern to work well he quickly 
develops a skill
and  speed at jumping through the chain of fingerings that produced
it, as though it were a single jump. This is similar to the way  one
drives a car. The first time there is a very slow  trial-and-error process
of seeing what causes what. But  in a very short time it becomes so
swift one doesn't even  think about it. The same is true of playing guitar.

Am I a machine?
 
Machines do not tend to do these kinds of things, unless they are  programmed 
to do them.
They do have robots now that can drive cars. But machines only 'learn' if  
they are programmed to learn.   People, so far, program the  machines.  
But People are genetically programmed to learn.   Parents do  not write the 
program, but they are mixing and passing along old  code.  
People are programmed to learn a language, although a  infinity of languages 
will work, as long as they are consistent  with our human language program, 
and as long as they learn the language at  a time in life that is within the 
correct developmental phase. 
Life distinguishes itself over the non-living be having the ability to  
learn, life beat the system of inorganic corrosion by learning how to improve  its 
adaptation to its environment, and replicating itself with a program for  
construction, including the construction of pre-programmed structures - all  these 
'gains' - hard fought over the eons, a hard-wired program we take for  
granted...
 
So, Welcome to the machine, I suppose.  But if ALL you see in Pirsig's  
theory is the static quality, the structure, then perhaps even a human being can  
be seen a machine, and the whole universe becomes drab and  mechanistic.    But 
that is not all a human is, everyone knows  that, Pirsig knows that, and you 
know Pirsig klnows that, right?  What  about Pirsig's Dynamic Quality?  It 
seems (to me) to Pirsig shows it  even in the quotation you chose:
 
    "From the baby's point of view, something, he  knows not what, compels 
attention."
 
  " ...with the same sense of wonder and  mystery and excitement created by 
the music..."
 
Machines do not exhibit a sense of wonder and mystery, am I  right?
Take your time... and I'm not just kidding, I do mean it... don't feel that  
a response must be quick, as I feel some questions take a long time to 
address,  and so, amidst a blizzard of topics, it's easy to feel rushed. 
 
Very interesting explosion of threads, everyone!   Wish I  could keep up with 
it all !
 
 
- Ted


"You couldn't see these cold water restrooms, 
or this baggage overload
westbound, and rolling, 
taking refuge in the roads..."
 
  - Joni Mitchell