Re: MD the quality of ignoring low quality

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Mar 16 2003 - 15:26:52 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?"

    Hi Wim, All:

    WIM:
    > The word quality in the above is used consistently in a SOMish manner: as
    > attribute of objects. Using the grammatical construction 'quality of'
    > usually confuses our understanding of the MoQ, in which 'Quality' is the
    > 'substance of' experience and reality. MoQish 'Quality' can be further
    > distinguished (only) in the 'stability' of patterns we experience, their
    > 'versatility' (recognizability despite change and different circumstances)
    > en 'dynamic' (appearance of new patterns). MoQish 'Quality' is only an
    > attribute of patterns. We have to guard against confusing patterns (which
    > can be categorized by level) and objects (which can usually participate in
    > patterns of different levels). This is very difficult, because the same
    > words that we need to describe patterns can also be used to refer to
    > objects. It is only possible if we understand from each other that this is
    > what we want (distinguish SOM from MoQ and objects from patterns) and try
    > not to misinterprete each other.
    >
    > MoQ as a discursive practice that can exemplify an alternative for
    > subject-object-thinking is a pattern of using 'Quality' in a MoQish way (as
    > described above). Lapses are inevitable, because we are used to use the
    > same language in a SOMish way. MoQ as a real 'metaphysics' may indeed be
    > unnecessary.

    I suspect you've said something important here about the MOQ. But I'm
    not certain I fully grasp your idea. I do know that I've often been
    suspicious of that little world "of" because it tends to swing one's
    thoughts into the SOM mode. Like, "I have the experience of reading
    these words" when in the MOQ, "experience" is not "of" something but
    a phenomenon that stands by, for and of itself.

    So I wonder, Wim, and any others who have thoughts about this, if
    you'd be willing to expand on MOQ "Quality" as pure experience and
    how we can best catch and correct ourselves when confusing moral
    patterns with objects. Some specific examples would be most helpful.

    Thanks.

    Platt

    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 : Sun Mar 16 2003 - 15:27:14 GMT