From: Joe (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 19:18:53 BST
On 25 July 2003 6:54 AM Brian writes:
> Greetings Pi, Bo
(snip)
> Which brings up another point (perhaps for another time, but oh well): The
> ZAMM Quality is something that we can actively pursue. Dynamic Quality
seems
> like an intellectualization of this Quality, and becomes hard to search
out,
> because it is now strictly defined, even if that definition is "change
which
> cannot be statically defined." I find it hard to base my actions on a
> "Dynamic Quality" because, to tell you truth, deep down as a human being,
I
> don't really understand what that means. Intellectually I can understand
it
> in the scope of the MOQ, but outside of this context, it suddenly has no
> meaning to me. A human being is more than just an intellectual static
> pattern of value, we are comprised of, and also comprise to a certain
> extent, all 4 levels of the MOQ, and so an intellectualized concept of
> Quality cannot apply to our entire humanity.
>
> So my ultimate point is, is the MOQ a subtle byproduct of Quality, that is
> useful for Pirsig and some others, but perhaps not useful to all? Is the
MOQ
> an absolute truth?
>
> My ideas at this point in time (subject to change within the next few
> moments) are currently leaning towards "no", because the MOQ appears to me
> to be entirely an intellectualization, and thus is effective or even
> meaningful at all only in the context of the intellect level, because it
is
> purely a product of this level.
>
> But hey, Pirsig himself said something similar to this in Lila when
talking
> about the immorality of building an intellectual metaphysics around the
> concept of Quality. Already with this message I have fallen into the same
> trap, I believe :).
Hi Brian, Pi, Bo, and all,
joe: 40 years ago I studied scholastic philosophy, and the theory that we
know things, and create words by abstraction. In ZAMM Pirsig destroys this
basis for knowledge by pointing out that Quality is not subjective.
In Lila Dynamic Quality is undefined, and for myself I had to propose a new
way of knowing things. From postings back and forth it seems that mind,
will, and all subjective, objective, differences leads back to SOM.
Following other thinkers, I proposed an instinctive sensing of reality,
intuition, as the way we know things. 'Existence' is undefined as it
encompasses four moral orders in an hierarchy. 'Purpose' as the basis for
actions is undefined, as many times I don't know what I am doing. Dynamic
Quality is undefined, and is latched into Static Quality for preservation.
I concluded that Static Quality is a pattern to which I attach a word, and
other people know what I am talking about.
The composition of the static pattern is complicated. For the apprehension
of Dynamic Quality I have a brain 'intuitive intellect'. For the
apprehension of 'existence' I have a brain, 'emotion'. For the apprehension
of 'purpose' I have a brain in the spinal column.
Words are composed of undefined aspects of 'existence', 'purpose', dq,
latched into an sq pattern. For the manipulation of words into sentences
etc. I have a DNA generated awareness field with memory, similar to a
gravity field around a planet. A 'sentient' is a self-aware being who has
an instinctive sensing of reality, intuition. My instincts can be trained
to optimal function by education, for a fuller participation in society.
Abstraction leading to subjective, objective experience, SOM is flawed.
Pirsig proposed a MoQ but he did not explain a way of knowing the undefined,
only that we do.
Joe
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 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 19:15:14 BST