From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Thu May 12 2005 - 18:26:36 BST
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 5:04 PM Mark writes to Michael:
[Mark] And that's my problem. If there's no behaviour you can do to affect
the Quality of your writing, then why bother practicing or working
hard at writing? It won't affect the Quality. And if there is such a
behaviour, or class of behaviour, then the undefinable nature of
Quality would be challenged by the existance of that behaviour.
Hi Mark, Michael, and all,
Your observation is to the point!
I look at the subtitle to Lila, 'An Inquiry into Morals', and wonder why it
seems so important. I have an inclination to logic. Still I can be confused
by words. I am good. Sometimes my bad actions bewilder me. Knowledge and
being! I see laws like the law of gravity controlling knowledge and being. I
see Quality to be an approach to 'an adherence' to these laws. Tinkering
with the motorcycle! Like analyzing how good music is produced from time,
notes, etc. Beauty! I want logic, morality, beauty and that takes practice.
I know 2+2=5. I know I can drink gas and run like a motorcycle. I know a
wart is beautiful.
A law for knowledge: 'yes, that is true'. A law for being: 'yes that seems
to be in order'. A law for beauty: Wow! 1 in 3 in 7! Go figure! I guess what
I am saying is that there is a law of me! A law of us! A law of? Practice!
Ewwww!
Joe
> Hello Michael,
>
>>> My real bother about the understanding I've developed - and I add
>>> again that I'm in no way sure that it's correct - is that it makes the
>>> MOQ a profoundly depressing, disempowering, hopeless viewpoint. I
>>> presume that the MOQ doesn't apply to forms of quality which are
>>> already directly understood, such as the "quality" of a
>>> multiple-choice exam answer sheet as calculated by comparing given
>>> answers with a set of predetermined correct ones.
> MH> The MOQ applies to everything! The quality of a particular answer in
> MH> the kind of exam you describe is static, and falls into the
> MH> intellectual level, as do all patterns that relate to truth or
> MH> falsity. The MOQ does apply to "forms of quality which are already
> MH> directly understood" (i.e. objects or subjects of any kind, anywhere):
> MH> it calls them static patterns of quality.
>
> Ok! I guess my real question is: to what extent does the behaviour of
> a person, in creating a work, affect its Quality? When someone writes
> down a piece of music, or draws a picture, we know they move their fingers
> to move a pen
> which releases ink onto paper to write the music or draw the picture, but
> how does the
> Quality get into that sheet of music or that picture? (Or is it a
> property only of
> the actual music that's heard, not just the written representation of
> it?) What human limb manipulates Quality?
>
> MH> The examples you give of essays and music, the value of which are
> MH> often deemed to be subjective and therefore unknowable, are the kind
> MH> of cases where the MOQ comes into its own. In fact Pirsig uses them
> MH> both as examples in either ZMM or Lila. For the essays, I'll direct
> MH> you to the chapters in ZMM describing Phaedrus as an English teacher
> MH> and his early discoveries about Quality. It's worth getting familiar
> MH> with, because it's a fundamental part in the genesis of the MOQ, and
> MH> Pirsig explains far better than I could.
>
> Sure, and it's exactly that kind of explanation that I've been
> thinking about. Before reading that part of ZMM I'd have assumed - as
> I think many people would - that the "quality" of an essay was some
> function of the choice of words that somebody had made, therefore
> meaning that certain people possessed of something called "talent"
> would choose better words more reliably and thus produce higher
> quality work. Of course, that's pretty bad if you aren't one of those
> lucky individuals, but at least it implies that you do have some input
> into whether your work is good or not.
>
> But if Quality is this unique thing - a fundamental building block of
> the Universe, undefinable in terms of anything else - then that
> assumption is kicked away. Our bodies can manipulate matter, and can
> work based on energy, but what limb touches Quality? How can our
> body, or mind, manipulate something so utterly undefinable? And if we
> indeed *cannot* manipulate it then, surely, Quality in the works we
> produce must come from elsewhere, unaffected by our behavior in doing
> it!
>
> And that's my problem. If there's no behaviour you can do to affect
> the Quality of your writing, then why bother practicing or working
> hard at writing? It won't affect the Quality. And if there is such a
> behaviour, or class of behaviour, then the undefinable nature of
> Quality would be challenged by the existance of that behaviour.
>
> And yea, I think I'm wrong, too, so I guess I'm really asking to get
> corrected here..
> --
> Best regards,
> Mark mailto:mark@antelope.nildram.co.uk
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 12 2005 - 18:29:48 BST