Hi Ant,
Thank you for your response.  I am doing my best to intuit what
awareness you have of Quality and thus where you are coming from.  By
this, I mean what lies behind the rules and regulations.  I will start
with an explanation of my view on MoQ development, and end by
addressing some pertinent comments from your previous post.  All of
this may or may not be useful to you.  It is not meant in any way to
question any authority within MoQ, and as always I am happy to get any
constructive suggestions from your point of view.

It can be proposed that there are two separate processes at work in
MoQ.  The first is the translation of a personal awareness that has
resulted from a journey.  This I will term the "Hero's approach", and
is exemplified by Pirsig's two novels.  The second are the rules and
regulations that are formed in order to enable societal transmission
of the land found, and enable others to travel there.  This I will
term the "bureaucracy".  This is of course an artificial division I am
creating for rhetorical purposes, and there is no finger pointing
going on here since it should be understood that we each have some of
both in various balances.  It is not difficult to draw a relationship
between the generation and consolidation of MoQ described above, and
its relationship between DQ and SQ.  This is, of course, analogy.

A "new" metaphysical idea can result from an "awareness" that the hero
experienced, some call this a "spiritual awakening" or "sudden
revelation".  In essence there is a dramatic paradigm shift in one’s
own relation to the cosmos.  The difficulty in translating this all
encompassing view into fragmentary words and concepts is well
recognized by all who attempt to do so.  The conversion into static
patterns is fraught with difficulties, and the end result of such
translation can often mislead the reader.  There are, of course, many
people who choose not to impart such awareness in the form of words
and books, but choose instead to disseminate their awareness through
word of mouth; this makes it less tricky.  Example of such heroes, are
Socrates, Buddha, and Jesus; none of them ever wrote anything down
since they could see the propensity for dogma.  What follows such
initial description is a bureaucratic approach which resorts to a
system of rules to encapsulate the hero's tale.

This static quality is always changing as new information comes in.
An alternative would be to form a Svedenborgian type of society, where
in the writings of Pirsig are all that govern the format of MoQ.
Unfortunately there is little information to go on here, and difficult
to interact with Pirsig.  This type of approach would seem to be very
restrictive to the inherent demand that MoQ move towards betterness.

The propensity for misuse of any static encapsulation is obvious, and
I can cite the Christian Church as one such extreme example.  In the
West many have become bewitched by the power of the word, and can
easily mistake it for the original awareness.  This is akin to
mistaking a painting for the landscape that was painted. In such cases
the particular words used or the manner of the rhetoric becomes of
extreme importance, and guidelines such as "definitions" are resorted
to.  If instead, the writings of Pirsig are taken more as a chautauqua
told around a fire, one can appreciate the song embedded in the
stories, and the music becomes more revealing than the lyrics.

This is a Hero/Bureaucracy balancing act is difficult since the hero
side wishes to spread the word, and a societal integration of this
word is desired for the purposes of improving existence amongst their
fellow man (so far as they see it).  Often times the hero becomes
reticent in providing more words since he understands that the
awareness must be arrived at personally, as that was his experience.
These are the cautions that are put forth in Lila.  MoQ is perhaps
better represented as a door which one can walk through in order to
generate an awareness using some very simple principles.  Anybody can
walk through this door, and experiment on how best to use what MoQ
presents.  Anybody can come back with their experience translated in
their own words, and this new information can be incorporated into
MoQ, once addressed by the bureaucracy.

Through its own intrinsic design, MoQ is meant to continually change
into a better manner of representing a relationship with/of Quality.
There is some comfort to know that what we think of as MoQ today will
be completely different at some time.  As with the discipline of
science, a future MoQ may not seem anything like it does currently.
However, this change is achieved through small steps.  The recording
of such steps can be documented as was done in Lila's Child (thank you
Dan), and serve as a historical perspective of how we got to where we
are today.  We can then see what has changed about MoQ through reading
how it progressed.  This can be performed since the publication of
Lila by noting the changes that MoQ has undergone.  Others are better
equipped than I to monitor this progress, and it would be interesting
to see how MoQ is getting "better" since 1992.

There is also a way in which metaphysics can be annealed.  Man is a
sign of his times, and similar ideas arise simultaneously in different
places.  Take calculus for example, Newton and Leibnitz.  It we take
the adventurer analogy, a new continent can be explored by several
individuals starting from the four polar coordinates.  Each will be
exploring the same continent but from different starting points.
Alternatively each explorer can set forth with different tools for
exploration.  These individuals can then get together and create a
more complete picture of the territory.  From the total of these
travels, the bureaucrats can then form a map from.  Unexplored
territory can then be added to the map as it is discovered by the next
set of adventurers.  Others are more equipped than I to propose who
such adventurers are within MoQ, as well as who are the leading
bureaucrats.

There are some who began on their journey through Quality after ZAMM
came out.  There are others who were already on their journey through
Quality.  Many of these chose not to write books about this, because
of the degenerate potential of doing so.  As it is, we currently work
off one man's description of the journey, which is of course delivered
as a story of another individual (Phaedrus).  This is for obvious
reasons since the "awareness" that Pirsig had was somewhat ablated (as
he confesses to in his books) because of the obvious negative impact
it had on this existence in society.  Ant, I am sure you had
discussions with Pirsig about this, and he probably cautioned you as
to what you may find.

There are others who did not undergo this type of "treatment" but
found other ways to cope, perhaps you, Ant, are one of these and speak
from personal experience in your posts.  In short, Quality has never
been the proprietary knowledge of one person, and indeed descriptions
of it can be found throughout the ages of man.  To build a structure
on one person's awareness would have left existentialism dead in the
water.  MoQ has a long way to go.



On 6/5/12, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt@hotm...> wrote:
>
> Mark Smit stated June 5th 2012:
>
>> Ham Priday May 30th:
>>
>> This analysis was in answer to Mark's question: "Why cannot the whole
>> expression
>> of the universe be one of learning value?"  I was trying to convince him
>> that value isn't something "learned" like history or math, but rather an
>> emotional response to something beyond himself.
>>
>> Ant McWatt commented June 4th:
>>
>> I think it would be better to say that value isn't a emotional response
>> but
>> is primarily experienced emotionally - at least for human beings. For a
>> quantum particle, this "value response" will entail something different.
>>
>
> Mark commented:
> A more relevant approach is to not create an artificial distinction
> between value/experience/emotion, for this creates boundaries where
> none exist.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> You're getting there, Mark though Pirsig wouldn't conflate "emotion" with
> "Value/experience".

Mark comments:
Yes, I know Pirsig would not conflate this.  I am writing this not for
Pirsig but for others, since many statements reveal that this
conflation is common in this forum.  I thought you were making the
same mistake, but guess I misinterpreted.  The point is not what
Pirsig would do, but how does your own personal awareness of Quality
distinguish between your own emotions and value/experience.  This may
help me understand where you are coming from.

>
> Moreover, the phrase of Ham's 'An emotional response to something beyond
> himself' in regard to Value puts him in an SOM prison.  In my re-phrasing of his
> terms, I was just trying to show him a key to get out.  Maybe, one day, the
> penny will drop...

Well, perhaps it will "drop", however, I find Ham's awareness to be
quite remarkable.  He is attempting to show us how to "get in".
Having said that, my attempts are simply to provide understanding of
MoQ, not that he need find it useful.  For who am I to say?

The SOM or SQ prison is something which we make up in MoQ.  In this
way, we create our own bars.  From an alternate view of reality, there
is no need to “get out”.  It is not proper to impose one set of
metaphysical precepts on another’s.  To do so suggests a “missionary”
attitude, which we should try to stay away from.  If some like it,
they will come.
If you feel that your concept of SOM is “prison-like”, then I can say
that there is a way out of that.  SOM, and all the other acronyms are
tools we make up for describing a metaphysics of Quality. Both SQ and
DQ are concepts which we use to describe Quality.  One cannot be a
prisoner of one's own concept.  To do so creates a paradox.  It is not
as if we can create SOM and then step into it.  The analogy would be
to create a prison, and then put such prison inside of itself.  This
is of course, nonsense.

If indeed we treat these acronyms (and Quality for that matter) as
something which envelops us, we enter into the world of Gods, which
are looking down on us.  Quality is awareness; it is not something
that exists outside of us, although it is sometimes useful to go that
route for rhetorical purposes.  We created Quality, it cannot then
create us.  It is important to understand SQ for what it is.  SQ
creates the concept of DQ as an alternative to provide a handle for
description.

You may find that it is much more useful to drop the prison analogy
and use one of balance.  Everything then clears up.  I have dealt with
this in many posts which are in the archives.  As such there is
nothing to break out of since attempting to break out simply confuses
one into deeper imbalance.  You may not understand this, but it does
not stop me from trying to explain, since I care.

>
>
> Mark continued:
>
> In addition, to presume that value is somewhere outside,
> rather than such that rises within as experience seems to be confusing
> the subjective with the objective, and dismissing DQ as inadequate.
> The notion of a "value response" is not in keeping with MoQ, for value
> is the response.  One simply cannot explain value as something that
> lies without.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> It would be clearer to say here: "in the MOQ, Value comes before subjects &
> objects and notions of inside & outside."

Yes, we can certainly say that.  Just remember that such a statement
must be placed into context, otherwise it is simply a statement of
fact which is unjustified.  We must always be aware that we create the
concept of Value, and we do this through SOM means, for that is the
tool used.  We can say that Value has nothing to do with "inside and
outside".  Value does not exist outside subjects and objects; in the
same way a window does not exist outside its frame.  I am sure you are
aware of this so I present it for other readers.  Therefore to state
that Value comes "before" does not make any sense, because there is no
"before" in terms of Value.  What comes first is your awareness of
such things, as you know.  "I am therefore I think".  Value is a
product of SOM differentiation; otherwise we could not even talk about
it.  In any metaphysics which attempts to explain itself this should
always be kept in mind.  To say that Value comes before subjects and
objects must be explained in the context in which it is being used.
>
> Mark continued:
>
> This is incongruous with Quality.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> It would be better to say here: "This is incongruous with the MOQ"

No, I meant incongruous with Quality.  I am speaking from Quality, MoQ
is one attempt at formalization of such.  Perhaps I should have said
it is incongruous with Quality awareness, but I always assume we are
speaking of the same thing.  It would incongruity be like being aware
of pink elephant in the desert as a form of incongruity (an analogy,
remember).  Such incongruity is brought in through the
pre-intellectual, and then formalized by the intellect.  The intellect
is a description of what one has already become aware of.

The metaphysics of Quality is metaphysics OF awareness, which starts
with Pirsig's translation of such awareness.  As such it begins from
his point of view.  We must always keep this beginning in mind, but
not stop there.  Otherwise what Pirsig has wrote will have been
fruitless.
Simply put, one must use one's awareness to make sense of and
construct MoQ, it does not work the other way around.  It would be
like pushing a rope.  Therefore, we can speak of things as incongruous
with Quality awareness.  This may sound like nonsense to you, but it
is very real.  We write down our travels, we do not write down where
we are going to travel, for we do not know.  One cannot create the
landscape before one gets there.  OK enough with analogies, Mark, but
this is important.  We have a long way to go.
>
>>
>> Ham Priday continued May 30th:
>>
>> Value-sensibility is identified with a particular human being in the same
>> way that consciousness is the locus of one's awareness.  Since
>> sensibility
>> is an 'essent', not an 'existent' like the physical body, it has no
>> empirical location.
>>
>> Ant McWatt commented:
>>
>> That sounds like a important difference with the MOQ.  In the MOQ, I
>> would
>> suggest that this value sensibility of yours doesn't exist as biological
>> patterns have a space-time location.
>
> Mark commented:
> It is difficult to argue a point in metaphysics using the assumptions
> of another metaphysics.  That one concept exists in one and not in
> another is simply based on the underlying assumptions.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Again, you're kind of getting there, Mark.  As I implied to Ham in my last
> post, it's fine to argue a point between two metaphysical systems as long as
> you remember to translate the terms of one system into the other properly.  In
> other words, you don't assume the same terms (in the two different systems)
> entertain the same meaning.
>
Mark comments:
My post was an attempt to correct the misdirection I thought you were
providing to Ham.  If I am getting there, then so are you.  We can
work on this getting together.  When you stated that Value as
presented does not exist in MoQ, this was really a non-sequitor as I
explained.  I was simply trying to clear up some possible confusion
left by your post.

> Mark continued:
>
> One cannot refute terminology in such cases.  As I see it, Ham argues that
> sensibility gives rise to other, while Ant seems to argue that value
> sensibility is a biological function.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> I think it would be better to say here that "value sensibility is LARGELY a
> biological function".  I'm thinking here of the hot stove example in LILA.

Mark:
This is indeed a fine distinction since the workings of the brain are
a biological function as well.  Perhaps you could provide your
thoughts on where the biology stops and the intellect starts.  For
example, the stomach has a very intricate nerve system who's
complexity is only surpassed by the head's.  In addition most of our
brain's function lies outside our direct awareness of such.  I believe
going forward it may be a good idea to better define these terms.
Being a biologist, I find it difficult to distinguish between the
intellect and the rest of biology.

It can be enlightening to view the intellectual response as a
biological response.  This is completely distinct from the
intellectual level which is something else altogether.  This can draw
some closer to a dynamic interaction rather than feel somehow
separated from DQ.  As the nerves fire, there a fluctuations of sodium
and potasium that are directing this.  If that is not DQ, then jumping
off a hot stove is not either.  Anyway, something to consider.

As you continually say, a definition of terminology is needed, so that
we do not keep posting across each other.  For example a better idea
of what we mean by the intellect, and how the subconscious and the
rest of the body is involved.  Ideas are not formed by our current
thought patterns, but they come from beyond that.  I really do not
want to get caught up in that paradox where everything we think of SQ,
because it is not, trust me.  Thinking itself is an active process
which includes DQ.  That is the formation of concepts is happening in
real time every time we think about them.  This is DQ.  It becomes SQ
when we seek to objectify thoughts so that we can exchange them. But
words are no more thoughts, than notes on a page are music.

Having said that I have no problem saying that our connection to DQ is
through a "biological function", in order to progress this discussion,
but we need to better define that term.  Perhaps one "difference"
could be the property of "reflection".  This may make sense since all
words and concepts are reflections.  Your thoughts on this?
>
>
> Mark continued:
>
> The question should be, which one is a better descriptor of one's awareness.
>  This can then be
> proposed in standard philosophical fashion.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> "This can then be proposed in standard philosophical fashion"...  I don't
> know what this bit of rhetoric  adds to the clarity of your argument, Mark.
>  Sounds good though.

Yeah, that was not clear.  Any metaphysics is meant to describe one's
relationship with the cosmos.  Within the bounds of Western
metaphysics, it seems to me that we can formulate what we "see" using
the tools of philosophy so that we can then converse.  The tools of
philosophy are secondary to that which uses them.  The creation lies
inwardly, and is then expressed in words.  In this way, one is not
right or wrong.  Given that, a possible synergism of ideas is
possible.  We are all describing the same thing, just in different
ways.  If we view it from the other side, that is trying to stay
consistent with a translation of Pirsig's, we deny ourselves any
opportunity of self expression.  I would like to better understand
your view of things through a Quality awareness.  This would require
you speak of things other than the rules of MoQ.

>
> Mark continued:
>
> For indeed, the response of value is what creates the biological pattern.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Mark, you're conflating Value with "value response" here.  That confuses
> matters rather than clarifies anything.

Mark:
Perhaps I can further clarify.  Value as expressed through MoQ, is not
something that exists outside of us since it is the fabric of our very
being.  Therefore one cannot strictly speak of a value response since
there is nothing to respond to.  The value and the response are the
same thing.  Does this make more sense?
>
>
> Mark continued:
>
> It comes first and cannot be denigrated to the level of SQ.
>
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> I think what Mark is trying to say here is that in the MOQ, Quality
> logically comes first, static patterns such as "value sensibility" (which, let's
> presume, is largely a biological response to the Qualty Event) come second.  The > definitions of terms such as "value sensibility" come third
> and are then used to describe the world in which we live.  The better these
> descriptions are then the better Quality of life we will consequently have.
>
Mark comments:
If that works for you Ant then go with it.  Logic is of course in the
eyes of the beholder.  Perhaps a better word to use in place of
logically would be usefully.  Hopefully you can comprehend Ham's
position which is not much different since he describes such
sensibility as an essent. That is, as a creator of sorts (please
correct me Ham).

We live in a world of inner symbols and more archetypal outward
symbols.  One way to understand MoQ is that it suggests the
harmonization of both symbols.  That is, to live in tune with reality.
The better this harmony the better one's quality of life.  The dictum
in more ancient alchemy is "as above, so below" which means the same
thing.  By objectifying that which lies within to that which lies
without, one can become aware of harmony.  This is why DQ is often
said to exist separate from our intellect.  However, both are one and
the same from the viewpoint of Quality (that is before the division).
I think Marsha gets this as hopefully do we all.  This is not to say
that the separation of DQ and SQ is not useful as a tool for
description.
>>
>>
Ham Priday continued May 30th:
>>
>> First of all, unlike Pirsig, I don't subscribe to the view that "the
>> world is composed of nothing but moral value," nor do I believe that the sense
>> of Value is necessarily "moral" in nature.
>>
>> Ant McWatt commented:
>>
>> Ham, it's worth keeping in mind that - to keep things metaphysically
>> consistent - we have an expanded view (regarding traditional Western
>> notions) of "moral nature" in the MOQ following  the lines (but expanding
>> much further) of the Ancient Greek  notion of arete (see HDF Kitto's "The
>> Greeks").  So, for instance, if a requested flute player doesn't play to
>> their best ability at a wedding, then they would be regarded as acting
>> immorally as far as the MOQ is concerned.
>
> Mark commented:
> Often it is somewhat trivial to propose the argument of semantic
> distinction for the use of a term such as morality.  For such would
> imply the need to learn a special language in order to understand MoQ.
>  This is clearly not needed, because by this argument, morality could
> be anything the metaphysics want it to be, for sake of convenience.
> We all know what morality is and to obfuscate by means of words is
> deceptive.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> That's an intriguing way of looking at things, Mark.  Anyway, to be clear, I
> was just alerting to Ham the fact that the MOQ uses the term "morality" in a wider
> context than he would find in a traditional school text concerned with  Western metaphysics.  For instance, everything in the MOQ is considered a form of morality rather than conventional notions of virtue which are usually limited to human behaviour on the social and intellectual levels e.g. telling the truth;
> or volunteering at your local Obama 2012 office.  In fact, let's conflate
> the two! You'll be pleased to hear that Obama's team have a Truth Team whose webpage can be visited here:
>
> http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/?source=tt-home-btn

Mark comments:
Yes, I believe I understood your intent, and the use of the word
trivial, was not directed to you, but to the lack of effect of such a
statement.  I was just saying that definitional differences was not
the right way to go about this explanation of morality, for it leaves
the reader without any further understanding except for a language
barrier.  Perhaps a better way to explain it is that this universal
morality is no different from our morality.  We just have the human
version of it (if you will).  Therefore, it is possible to understand
this universal morality by simply understanding the basis for one's
own morality.  Once personal morality is understood, as in "know
thyself", the same description can be used for a more cosmic morality.

We are not other than what we were created from.

The same approach can be used in terms of intelligence.  For
intelligence to exist in ourselves, it cannot arrise out of nothing,
but must be symptomatic of something else.  Before any protest, let me
say that I am not suggesting a separated intelligence that is
directing traffic or making designs.  All I am saying is that
intelligence, (and self awareness), does not come from nowhere, does
not live in a vacuum; it must be understood as an underlying
phenomenon.  In this way the planet (for example) is intelligent
precisely because it operates by the same principles as we do.  In MoQ
terms, one cannot consider Quality as separate.  In the new book I am
reading by J-A, I believe he uses the phrase that Quality directs
evolution, which is a good way to explain it to the beginner.  I would
simply add on to that, that Quality is Evolution as well.

I have stopped paying attention to politics until Election Day.  It is
interesting that the most self-centered and power-hungry breed of
American is the one we choose to control the country.  It is like
letting the wolf guard the chicken coop…  At least England has a
benign monarchy, although throughout history the peasants never liked
the monarchy.
>
>
>
> Mark continued:
>
> The other issue I see with Ant's comment is that morality
> is dealt with in hindsight in the examples.
>
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Every intellectual statement is based on hindsight.

Mark comments:
It would seem that much of MoQ are proposals, not historical review.
>
>
>
> Mark continued:
>
> Therefore such morality should be dealt with in such terms.  It is not
> what things are, but what the tendency is.  This removes some of the
> SOM baggage, that the argument seems to be weighed down with.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> I think what Mark meant to say here is the MOQ asserts that everything (from
> an amoeba to
> a Van Gogh painting) is an individual moral order of some sort and that
> these moral orders can be sorted
> in a hierarchy using the cosmological theory of evolution i.e. the history
> of the universe
> from the Big Bang (if that indeed happened) to now.
>
> What Mark should have asked me previously is what is the implications (if
> any) for the MOQ
> if the "Steady State Theory of the Universe" becomes in fashion again...

Mark comments:
In answer to Ant’s question at the end, I would simply say that MoQ
will become better in response to new attitudes.  In terms of his
previous clarification, I would only say the the term “different
sorts” of moral order is misleading, since we are dealing, in fact,
with the same moral order.  I am sure Ant understands this, and I am
simply improving his rhetoric.
>
>
>>
>> Ant McWatt commented:
>> If value is not placed as primary in a metaphysical system, you're either
>> going to end-up concluding that it doesn't exist or with a logical
>> conumdrum
>> - as we see in the following:
>
> Mark commented:
> Perhaps this could be a clever argument, but value is not based on
> logic, for we all know what it is.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> But the MOQ is built on logic and, of course, that is the context I was
> talking within!

Mark comments:
You seem to be drawing a distinction between MoQ and that which it
seeks to describe which is fine by me.  However one must always
remember that one is for the other.  Therefore to completely separate
them makes MoQ useless.  MoQ comes from a Quality awareness, as you
know.  Therefore the terms used must be consistent with your Quality
awareness and not some stand alone principles.  Therefore, we can say
that such awareness does not exist through logic, but outside of that.
It is important to always keep that in mind.
>
> Mark continued:
>
> Such logical arguments are somewhat irrelevent.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> So working out - logically -the best norms and value judgments is
> irrelevant?  Interesting.
>
> Looks like you're on the wrong Discussion Board Mark.  You really need to be
> on "Nihilist Discuss"
> but, sadly, it's never been set-up because... no-one cared enough to do so!

Mark Comments:
I thought you were aware of Quality, and that MoQ is a description of
such.  This forum is to discuss this description, based on what we are
aware of.  Often this falls outside of logic as it must.  Simply
dealing with a formalization of Quality would appear to be Nihilist.
Let us not loose track of what we are doing here.  The logic is
secondary.  I do not wish to see MoQ separate itself from what created
it.

I think there have been many Nihilist discuss, but they seem to self destroy.
>
> Mark continued:
>
> If somebody concludes logically that value does
> not exist unless conceived of as primary, they are living in some
> academic tower and have not been outside lately.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> I think what Mark was trying to say here is that Pirsig tried a number of
> ways to fit values in a
> coherent, logical framework.  He eventually concluded that the only -
> logical - solution was to
> place them first in a metaphysical system. This is the system we know and
> love today as "the
> Metaphysics of Quality" (or MOQ).

I am not sure why you keep referencing Pirsig, since the is MoQ.  If
you indeed know what is going on in the heart of Pirsig, then say so.
What he presents is an inquiry, to allow for us to think for
ourselves.  So it may be better to give us your personal view on what
you present above.  This third person attitude is somewhat
disingenuous, and implies a “hiding” of sorts.  Instead of writing
“Pirsig” how about saying “my opinion”  You are not revealing the word
of God.  Also, please remember that the MoQ is always getting better
so that our love can grow.
>
>
> Mark continued:
>
> This is the problem with logical proofs, that some in MoQ seem to subsist
> on.  We
> logically cannot reach our destination according to Zeno, and, it
> stands logically that value cannot exist unless it is primary.  Sounds
> a bit like a paradox, since we created the concept of Value.  We can
> not then place it before we create it,
>
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Mark, you're conflating Value with the concept of Value here... which is a
> bit naughty.

Mark Comments:
No I am not, and hopefully from what I have presented above you can
now understand this.
>
>
> Mark continued:
>
> ...as the creator derived from our
> creation.  One can certainly speculate as to such a thing, but such
> speculation resides outside of logic, and must be arrived at by other
> than intellectual means.  That being said, the directions pointed
> through the symbology of the intellectual can provide a view of what
> must be walked through.  It is impossible to read about Quality, just
> like it is impossible to understand a country by reading a guide book.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> You know, I'll save that paragraph. It's a good piece of rhetoric which
> might be useful for class.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Ham Priday continued May 30th:
>>
>> ...value is relative to the observer, to the space/time perspective of
>> the
>> individual subject.
>>
>> Ant McWatt commented:
>>
>> Yet Ham, you asserted above that "value-sensibility... is an 'essent',
>> not
>> an 'existent' like the physical body, it has no empirical location."  We
>> seem to have a move here from no empirical location to an empirical
>> location.  That doesn't seem to be ontologically consistent to me and is
>> at
>> least confusing!
>
> Mark commented:
> Ant appears to confusing terminology here.  Ham is using the term
> relative as "pertaining to",
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Mark, remember Ham's assertion here is also qualified by the phrase "to the
> space/time perspective of the individual subject".

Mark Comments:
Yes, this is what I mean by his use of relative, it is a personal
perpective, not relational in placement.

> [snip]

> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> I think what Mark meant to say is that, in LILA, Pirsig uses the MOQ to take
> an impartial examination
> of the advantages and disadvantages of Soviet style socialism and American
> capitalism.  For instance,
> Socialism is largely an intellectual pursuit (which is an improvement than a
> "might makes right"
> type of monarchy) but also disadvantageous compared to capitalism because
> the latter, in its use of free markets,
> is more open to Dynamic Quality.
>
> How anyone could (sincerely) think the MOQ (which grades everything in a
> moral hierarchy)
> supports cultural relativism is beyond me.

Mark comments:
Yes, it is beyond me as well.
>
All the best,
Mark>
>     
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html