> ROGER:
> Again, that is why the focus in the MOQ eventually goes beyond all
patterns
> to DQ itself.
AVID:
In this conversation I try to focus on what we don't agree to. It is not
that I object to focusing on DQ, but to overfocusing on DQ. Let me explain.
In my eyes we live in a world, in which we cannot escape the connotations of
what we say. Bryson [an Art historian] said: "We are drowning in
connotations". I agree that we looking on a SPQ [static pattern of quality]
we can lean on it's dynamic side or on its static side. Here I have a
suggestion to make, let us lean on its static side while criticizing it, and
lean on its dynamic side while applying it.
This means that I look for flaws in the [static] structure of each suggested
model in order to get an idea of further potential improvals. There is an
Indian story I've heard:
Two man got lost in a forest in a stormy night, suddenly there was a
lightening, one of them looked at it and was amazed by it, the other eyes
were focused on trying to find the way using the lightening light. The first
person got blinded by it [focusing on DQ led him to be unaware of his
mistakes], the second was practical [using DQ in order to improve his SPQ
[namely his way].
What makes MoQ unique is the structure of the SPQ, the idea of DQ is there
and important, but being ungraspable, let it be the eliminating sword of
reality [as in Darwin's biological evolution], and let us produce SPQ for
reality's elimination survival test.
> ROGER:
> The MOQ doesn't end with subjects and objects, though this is one way to
> slice sq. It also ends with value and morality and explains the platypi
of
> s/o logic. It doesn't negate s/o, it transcends it. But if you don't like
my
> wording, here is Pirsig's ....do you agree with his?
AVID:
Here I disagree. Seeing object and subject as standalones as entities that
make up our universe is exactly what MoQ criticizes in the first place. MoQ
says that S/O are quality dependant, so you can't say that an SPQ is just
objects and subjects, here quality is missing from the structure. The
problem is how to structure SPQ in a way that S/O are [maybe] part of it but
don't stand there exclusively. Pirsig to my best knowledge, doesn't clarify
this point, but here is a point for further developments.
To transcend S/O, is as wage and as blurred as before, unless it goes to
another level, but what is this level made of? Dq is not good enough, to
much flowing, no structure, and SOM is too rigid. So the problem boils down
to the best possible structure of a SPQ
PIRSIG:
> On P 417 Pirsig writes: "Subjects and objects
> are secondary. They are concepts derived from something more fundamental
> which he (James) described as "the immediate flux of life which furnishes
the
> material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories." In this
> basic flux of experience, the distinctions of reflective thought, such as
> those between consciousness and content, subject and object, mind and
matter,
> have not yet emerged in the forms which we make them."
AVID:
I totally agree. But here is a description of DQ nothing more. It doesn't
say anything on SPQ possible or best forms, just on the priority of DQ, the
blinding lightening that leaves you lost in the forest.
JAMES [via PIRSIG]:
" There must always be a
> discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are static
and
> discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing."
AVID:
YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So this leaves us with the task to minimize this discrepancy, namely find
new forms to kick an SPQ out if the discrepancy is too big.
> ROGER:
> And this one from 428 where he discusses insanity (though I think we would
> all agree he would apply this recommendation to a broader context): "This
> solution is to dissolve all static patterns, both sane and insane, and
find
> the base of reality, Dynamic Quality, that is independent of all of them.
"
>
AVID:
Yes I agree, but only as phase one, after finding DQ we have to build the
SPQ structure in such a way that:
1. It will ask the question about its quality as part of its structure.
2. It will make constant improvement part of the system [evolutional, not
revolutional].
3. It will clarify the problems of layers.
4. It will relate to other SPQ, horizontally [within a layer] and vertically
[between layers]
ROGER:
> I guess I am not sure what it is that you disagree with. In light of my
> clarification above are you ok?
AVID:
Yes, are you OK with mine?
> ROGER:
> Gee, sorry about the holocaust thing. I will avoid this word if it
bothers
> you. Maybe I should use nothing but Pirsig words . He called it "the
base
> of reality" as per the above P428 quote. Oh that's right, you aren't much
for
> the "R" word either. Hmmmm....Well, anyways, the message of the MOQ is
that
> everything is in essence (oops) composed of Value, or Quality...
>
AVID:
You miss the point. The thought that essence is graspable [the dream of 0%
connotations] is a blinding dangerous way. The holocaust was one of its
consequences. Purity is not of this world. Interlinked connotations and
relationships between things is. The word doesn't bother me, its inflated
mythical value is. The essence, the core, the source, don't hold as much
quality as we traditionally think. Quality is in the harmonization of
details, here in the essence quest the details get lost, terrible things
were done in our history in the name of purity. So in my eyes its time to
live in our unsure world and figure it out, leaving purity out of it.
AVID:
What is a R word?
> ROGER:
> Asta la vista Quality!
AVID:
Here I lost you.
> AVID:
> I don't
> know what is the essence of the ocean, I don't know what is the essence of
> me. Any look for an essence in my eyes is last years snow. Can't we do
> without them?
>
> ROGER:
> Great point, I will burn my copies of Lila right now.
>
AVID:
In my eyes LILA is not about essence it is about putting quality in the
center of our life as a primary cut in digesting reality. So hopefully you
haven't burnt your copies yet.
How many copies of Lila do you have? Isn't one enough?
> ROGER:
> I can't imagine it either. My analogy is just that there are multiple
> dimensions to the answer of what is the base of reality. Reality is DQ
> (water) and sq (waves). Every analogy has its limitations. Can't you
find
> anything you do agree with in the analogy?
AVID:
I see your point. But we have to be very careful with analogies, especially
within a new metaphysics. The problem is not what an analogy says, but what
it permits [once again it's connotations].
Maybe nobody noticed it, but for me it's obvious, Quality as in MoQ, is of a
situation, this means that we cannot think linear any more within MoQ. We
have to start to think holistically, so by bringing an analogy it is not
enough that it implies something, it s quality lies in the sum of all its
implications [not only the one you intended].
> AVID:
> Your keeping reality separate from the
> experienced, is little harm and no good, to use a metaphor that suggests
> that reality [itself] as an ocean is expiriencable not through SPQ is a
> misleading mistake
>
> ROGER:
> Have you read anything I have written this month? Your statement above is
so
> far from my beliefs as to be incomprehensible.
>
AVID:
I'm just reacting to what you wrote. If it stands far from your beliefs you
can recheck it again [quality is a holistic phenomenon]. I am glad that it
is far from what you believe in.
Last word about agreement and disagreement.
If somebody disagrees with me and tries to prove I'm wrong, then I have the
chance to get more information of what I'm talking about, and I find it
valuable. But if somebody agrees with me I have no gain in information by
this agreeing so in my eyes agreement holds less value than disagreement.
To show that this approach is nothing new I will tell you a story from the
Talmud.
There were two Rabbis who argued about everything all their lives. One day
one of them died. The other was so grieved by the other's death that his
pupils decided to bring him a very learned man to learn with. But this made
the old Rabbi even more sad. He said to his pupils: "When my friend was
alive, we argued about everything and the matter got clarified on its own
accord. But here you bring me this man who agrees to everything I say, what
is the use of him to me?"
It is not you who I am criticizing but your e mail words, if it is not what
you meant to say do it again, so I cannot misunderstand it as I did.
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
> Rog
>
>
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:10 BST