On 7/10/12, Carl Thames <cthames@cent...> wrote:
> If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it
> make a sound? No, of course not, because "sound" is a description of the
> effect of specific vibrations on specific auditory receptors. For the same
> reason, Quality MUST be differentiated. It must also be conceptual. It has
> to be about perceptions. Even Pirsig recognized Quality as an event. In
> order for it to be an event, it must be perceived. In order for it to be
> perceived, it must be differentiated, and it must capable of being
> perceived, which means it must be conceptual. It is significantly different
> from the "not this - not that" mantra you keep repeating. That is a
> technique used by zen masters to encourage students to break up their
> normal, dualistic thinking. It's a faulty syllogism. If dynamic quality
> was unknowable, as you say, it would be meaningless. It's not.
This is well put. Sound is an experience we create. It does not
exist on its own. Quality is about perceptions, but, in my opinion,
it is not those perceptions. Those are simply a result.
Certainly one can make the over riding principle "Patterns", but one
can also make it Quality. In metaphysical terms, Quality refers to a
conception of the nature of being. With the view from Quality, one
can perceive the world in a different way than we are normally brought
up in, in the West.
Quality becomes differentiated through presentation. Both Lila and
ZAMM deal with this differentiation. As such, a metaphysics of
Quality is a process of differentiation. If we say that Quality is
undifferentiated, all we are saying is that an awareness through
Quality comes before the differentiation. It is this mode of being in
existence that provides the differentiation. One could say that
something like "expectation" is undifferentiated (I was going to use
"love" but that turns people off for some reason). That is, it is
through "expectation" that things become differentiated. It is a
fundmental platform from which to differentiate.
To apply the term undifferentiated is really not correct in this
context, since I am speaking of a mode of viewing reality. That place
in which we exist as a "self" can also be considered undifferentiated.
When one uses 'undifferentiated" it is meant "as opposed to
differentiated" which makes no sense when speaking of a set of glasses
with which to see. When I look through a pair of glasses to look
around me, I do not call the glasses "undifferentiated". To do so is
I suggest that we do not perceive Quality, but that we perceive
"through" Quality. This may make the concept of Quality easier to
deal with. It is not a substance, for to be so it must be related to
another substance. Ham gets around this by using the concept of
Nothingness, as the backdrop in which to see something-ness. However
I do not think this is useful in a metaphysics of Quality.
The use of "event" can also bring about meaning. For example, we
speak of the "event of a concert". This event is not the people or
the music (or the drugs), but is a term for the entirety of the whole
thing. This "event" cannot be pointed at as a substance of
differentiation. We can be part of an event, but such event cannot be
found by analyzing the parts. It is only through "undifferentiation"
that the event can be conceptualized. This can be confusing to a
Western deconstructionist point of view. So while we can differentiate
and point to aspects of Quality, those are not Quality. Once we
introduce the concept of patterns, we have hidden Quality. Analyzing
the parts does not reveal Quality, which makes a metaphysics of such
difficult. But this is no different from many such metaphysics.
Taoism being one.
Quality is that from which there is no view out. It is a view in,
just like "self".