ROGER SUGGESTS AN MOQ DEFINITION OF QUALITY
Paul,
Let me see if I can help.....
Roger:
First, remember that Value and interaction are everything. Not even matter
exists. Everything is composed of the interaction of value. These are
inorganic POV's.
PAUL:
<<. Quality begins to look more and more subjective to
me........ Some, for instance, would find being sliced up with a
broken bottle much more "low-quality" (painful) while others would
prefer the slashing to the burning. therefore, the quality is once more
subjective. As for the "bypassing judgement", i think that this really
only has to do with the way that our bodies are wired.<<<<<<<<
ROGER:
The above are biological POV's. Matter that forms a "society" that transcends
the continuence of the matter pattern , and values the continuation of the
biological pattern.
PAUL:
<<<<If they were ..... raised or trained to not feel this way, they
wouldn't.>>>>
ROGER:
Social patterns of value can move upstream against BPoV's
PAUL:
<<<<<< theres very few other situations where we
can all agree on the quality unconditionally (and any little change in
perception drops Q into the subjective and away from the trancendant
manifest Q of Pirsig's writings)<<<<<<<<<
ROGER:
As you mention yourself, people's static experience and unique background
assures us that no two experiences are alike. The experience defines the
person. As their static pasts are more similar, they will be more and more
alike. Value and interaction are not subjective....... but our understanding
is. The sensation/interaction isn't objective, but our concept of the stove
is .
Paul, you're using an SOM definition of Quality. Try to replace it with the
word "value", and then remember that any interpretation of that value is pure
static Q.
Roger
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 - 16:02:45 BST