On 1/25/12, Andre <andrebroersen@gmai...> wrote:
> Mark to Andre:
> Yes, I agree with you that DQ is not subordinate to concepts, but neither is
> Are you saying here, Mark that sq is not subordinate to concepts? In the MOQ
> 'concepts' ARE static intellectual patterns of value. Concepts ARE sq.
Yes, sq is about concepts but is not subordinate to it. This is
simple set theory. Of course concepts are sq, but sq is more than a
concept. If it were not, we would have a concept about concepts and
enter into a never ending loop. For, if sq were simply a concept this
would mean that it does not have to exist and can be overturned by
another concept. This loop has to stop somewhere don't you agree?
> The concept of sq cannot contain the fact that it is sq itself.
> What? This brings up memories of discussions held long ago with Bodvar re
> the container issue. A dictionary cannot contain the word dictionary to
> describe itself? Oh dear, maybe I misunderstand you Mark.
I am not familiar with the Bodvar stuff, althought I may have read it.
Perhaps his did not present his argument well. Let me ask you this:
Relativism is about how things are relative to each other. Does this
statement give you any more information?, or, Definition: A
dictionary is something that uses dictionary terms. Does this provide
you with an "AHA, now I know what a dictionary is"? I am simply
pointing towards the creation of a paradox. Yes, Quality is
everything, even itself, but so what? Any definition points to an
assumption. To provide a redundant statement as above, has no
assumptions or ties, and kind of floats like a bubble, separate from
everything else it can tie into. "The survival of the fittest
BECASUSE the fittest suvive" kind of argument. Total nonsense in my
> We know better! We are not governed by static representations.
> Well, I'll be pedantic here. We are governed by static representations all
> right. To go a step further, from the MOQ perspective we ARE static
> representations of value, we are those patterns. Perhaps you mean that we
> are 'aware' of this and 'many' are not.
I will be pedantic and dynamic as well. We can allow ourselves to be
governed by static representations. This is akin to being asleep in
the Eastern sense. No, we ARE NOT those static representations. This
is where MoQ brings one, freedom from such things. This is why
dynamic quality is so important. We are only those patterns from
somebody else's viewpoint, not from our own. We look from the inside
out, not from the outside in. It is important not to be trapped by
some model or another. We do not have to always walk around with a
mirror in front of us. Static patterns is a model, it is not dynamic.
We are dynamic, we have no choice in that ;-).
> A picture on a wall can be a static representation. A picture formed in
> ones head is much more than that. Such picture is a vehicle towards
> understanding. There is nothing static about that, unless we
> let it be such.
> I get the feeling that there is a bit of a problem here Mark but perhaps it
> is only my own paranoia. I think you are conflating DQ with sq as well. What
> is the difference between a picture on a wall and a picture in one's head?
> Both are static representations and both can be a vehicle for further
> exploration no? I get the feeling that you are suggesting that the picture
> in your head is DQ because it 'is a vehicle towards understanding'. Please
> tell me I am wrong.
I am not sure about the paranoia. I am flexible and not trying to
state what is the right way. I would say that the difference is the
appearance of their nature of permanence. A picture on a wall is a
picture on a wall. A picture in one's head is not. A "pointing
finger" is a pointing finger. A "finger pointing" is not a pointing
finger. One is a static representation, the other is a means for
> As we form concepts, that is DQ in action, as we recieve concepts and
> understand them, that's DQ. This notion of some kind of filtration
> (removing DQ) going on between when we first sense something to when we
> conceptualize it does not make sense. The formation of a concept is primary
> Well, here it is. With all respect Mark: NO!! Experience (DQ) is first.
> After this we form concepts. "Quality is a direct experience independent of
> and prior to intellectual abstractions". The attempts at describing this
> experience is secondary. Value will always come first, the descriptions
> second. When you are at the stage of forming a concept/trying to put into
> words what you experienced then you already are at the secondary, static
Yes, but would you not say that the "formation of a concept" is
experience? This is something that is happening to you. I would have
to ask you when does the concept become static? Certainly not during
its formation. In fact, everytime we hold a concept in our heads it
is such in the present moment, in the everchanging present moment. It
is an ACTIVE process that is occurring while we think about it.
Again, this is a perspective from the inside out rather than the
outside in. A concept IS personal experience as it is happening
within you. We are not static beings no matter what people tell you.
Concepts are static when presented from the outside in, when presented
from a bird's eye view, not when you are experiencing them. This is
basic Zen. Stop looking at your reflection!
> As mentioned above, it seems to me that whenever there is 'movement' or
> 'action' you immediately equate this with DQ. I mean, it may be a dynamic
> formation/formulation but it is a step removed from your primary experience.
I am very familiar with how we think the brain works. The brain is
PART of the rest of our bodies, not separate from. An experience in
the brain as it conceptualizes is no different from an experience that
is considered to be "before" the brain. The act of conceptualizing is
primary experience in the same way as sitting on a hot stove. The
brain is not meant to remove us from primary experience. It is this
removal that IS the direction of Western thinking which MoQ seeks to
mitigate. MoQ is a return to the knowledge that we are not separated
from reality; that there is Quality within and Quality without.
Morality is not just a human thing.
> This blockage of DQ being part of the intellect representing results in more
> problems than it provides answers.
> Okay, here it is completely. You want to 'encase'/'encapsulate' DQ by making
> it part of the intellect? By making it part of the intellect you are making
> it into an intellectual pattern of value. Maybe an 'ideal type'? Now that
> would result in problems. The horror of this scenario continued Phaedrus on
> his mission with more resolve than ever. As I expressed earlier, my
> philosophy isn't up to scratch but this sounds Platonic to me ...to the
> hilt. It invites loads of religious and philosophic disasters back in again.
What I want, is to consider what MoQ means. I am not making it an
intellectual pattern of value by any means. I am pointing to how we
exist in DQ. This is not something that can be defined, but it can
certainly be pointed at. It is the pointing I am doing, not revealing
the object that I am pointing at.
I understand your concern of religion since it is simply a power game
when seen from the outside; dominance and submission! (wasn't there a
song about that "Master and Servient..."). I would have to say, that
there is much which IS Platonic within MoQ, and I have not even read
all of what he wrote by a long shot. If indeed, as Pirsig claims,
Plato existed in a transition point, then how could there not be?
I would have to understand what you mean by Platonic before I can see
if I agree. If what you mean is that he proposes a Truth out there
which dominates everything and that we need to aspire towards, then I
am not doing that. If what you mean is that there is an ideal form
behind what we see, then I would say "yes" for what do you think
Quality is? If what you mean is that there is a better way to see
things, as in his Cave analogy, then yes, I am Platonic in that sense.
It is better to exist in a three dimensional reality than a two
Plato was much smarter than I so I cannot claim that he is wrong or
not persuasive. (The human brain has not changed an iota since then,
only become more complex and confused.) If Plato was misguided it
would imply that everyone following would be dumb and unthinking. All
I can see is that his reasoning has taken us to an extreme, perhaps
something he never foresaw. Just look at how many labels science is
creating on a daily basis. Static Static Static, All is one big
machine that can be taken apart (deconstructed), even our very
awareness (see psychology posts). It is time for a rebalance and I am
not talking about the dark ages again, I am talking about a
renaissance FROM the dark ages. This renaissance will fly in the face
of dogmatic religion since it will not claim to be asserting the
Truth. It will also dispel the current sense of estrangement in a
mechanistic universe that science brings, since what we feel is felt
by the universe at large. We are not separated or controlled, never
have been. To think so is simply being complacent, lazy, or afraid.