MD-ers,
>To whom it may concern:
Oh hi Rich, what've you been up to?
>I have isolated 7 distinct statements of predication in the moq. By
>"predicate" I mean an essential feature, or pattern of value, of the moq. As
>of now I see these:
>
>1 - Quality is Reality
>2 - Quality is Morality
>3 - Quality is Undefinable
>4 - Quality is Experience
>5 - Quality is Dynamic
>6 - Quality is Static
>7 - Quality is Evolving
>
>Metaphors:
>-spokes of the wheel of Quality
>-petals of the flower of Quality
>-masks of the face of Quality
>-shadow cast by Lila's dance
>-what I'm getting at is the necessary dominance of aesthetic values in
>a developmental metaphysic of Quality.
>
>What I want to know is this:
>
>i: are there any true, good or beautiful statements of the form "Quality
>is..." which I have missed? In other words, within this framework, do you
>think I will be unable to correctly address any properties of Pirsig's
>thought?
>ii: do you believe any or all of statements #1-7? (or one's I missed)
> to what extent?
The first six are beyond argument, but No 7 I might have to think about.
Evolving means changing over time, which would put Quality within a
framework of time, no? Which would mean that there is a timeline outside of
Quality. I've just packed my LILA away cos I'm (finally) moving this
weekend, but didn't Pirsig say that the universe is evolving not quality.
Quality can't evolve through time because time is within Quality not before
it. And if it isn't evolving through time then what is it evolving through?
The static patterns evolve, though.
Maybe Quality is aesthetic, but that could be considered part of Quality is
Morality. Quality is Good also comes under the same principle.
Quality is awareness ... but that also comes under Quality is experience.
Back in the old days of the principles we came up with:
Quality.
Quality is reality. Quality is the ethical principle of the good. Thus
reality is a moral order. Quality, like reality, is known to us as
awareness. As such, it is impossible to define.
Dynamic Quality and static quality.
The best way to divide Quality is into patterns of Dynamic and static value
or experience.
We covered the same basic things. But not evolving. Evolution didn't come
into it till no 9
Evolution.
To create ever higher levels of awareness, Dynamic Quality strives for
freedom from all static patterns. Freedom is the highest Good in the
Metaphysics of Quality. Life is migration of static patterns of quality
toward Dynamic Quality.
> do you value any or all of statements #1-7? (ditto)
> why?
I'm not sure what you're getting at with them, sorry. Do you mean aesthetic
values are spokes of the wheel of quality?
>iii: what, if anything, can I say about "Dynamic Quality" which is valid
>within the scope of the moq's reasoning patterns, and which is worthwhile?
Dynamic quality is better than static quality.
>Thank you.
Welcome
DLM
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 - 16:03:14 BST