LOVE = CARE = QUALITY
***********************************
On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Fintan Dunne wrote:
>Hi glove, squad
>
>GLOVE>
>>no no no. you have it all wrong Fintan. its not the intellect that is
>>highest...it is Dynamic Quality! intellect is the the highest static
>>quality pattern of value.
>
>
>Yes, Glove and tell me:
>
>Is LOVE the highest attribute of life?
>Does LOVE arise from an intellectual PoV or a SOCIAL one?
>
>If SOCIAL then the heirarchy is :
>
>QUALITY=LOVE
>SOCIETY
>MIND/INTELLECT
>BIOLOGY
>INORGANIC
>etc
>
Hello, LS.
Basically, I agree w/ Horse: "Love" is a loose word that can be
used to mean a lot of things (a lot like "good," "real," and so on). But I
think that "love" as we genaerally think of it means something like an
intense state of careing. When you care so deeply about something that it
begins to... well, consume you... or "take over" or whatever...
Now I've said before that (at least if you go by ZMM) CARE and
QUALITY are two sides of the same coin, or (to say the same) two ways of
looking at the same thing. In ZMM Pirsig says that what we call "Quality"
is the objective componant -- that which is percieved as being "in the
thing." "Care" is our descriptor of the subjective ellement -- the part
that is "in us." ('This motercycle has a lot of quality, and I really
care about it.') Since "quality" and "care" are the percieved subject
and object componants of what is essentually (in-essence) the same thing
(that is: they arise out of the same primary, creative source -- Quality
w/ a big-Q), care and quality are the same thing, and RMP could have just
as easily called his philosophy "The Metaphysics of Care" as the "MoQ."
The difference is only semantic and in emphasis... but they *really* say
the same.
So, Fintan, bringing up Love (care) in no way undermines the MoQ
or subverts the static hierarchy that Pirsig came up w/. The whole damn
thing is about "love," you might say.
But "Love" is a loose and confusing word. I think CARE-QUALITY is
a lot more percise and easier to explain. Everyone cares for something,
and if you ask them why they'll say, "I don't know. It's just good. It's
what I like, okay!?"
TTFN
Donny (I CARE, therefor I am) Palmgren
P.S. Fish who try to swim up-stream w/o any disciplin or control
or direction don't end up up-stream. They get washed downstream w/ the
lazy fish -- only they're more worn-out and disillusioned when they're
done. "Gumption" implyes control.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:42 BST