Hello everyone
jc wrote:
>
> At 11:58 PM -0600 11/15/99, Dan Glover wrote:
>
> [jc]
> >> It seems sort of arrogant and defeatist at the same time to say "It's all
> >> unknowable". I mean how could you know that?
> >
>
> [Dan]
>
> >Hi jc
> >
> >I beguile you to use correct quotes, if you wish to quote others. I did
> >not write "it's all unknowable", rather it is my belief we will never
> >understand nature of reality/self.
>
> Hi Dan and thanks for the interaction.
>
> I think I see the trouble in the above sentence... I didn't intend to quote
> you when I said, "it's all unknowable" - I'm not college educated and can
> sometime trip myself up on the use of punctuation. The """ is sometimes
> ambiguous. For instance, it can be used as a meta-pointer when we're
> talking about the word or phrase itself rather than using the word as a
> normal part of a sentence and it was in that regard that I used it -
> perhaps wrongly. I'm hazy on exact proper usage. I use the convention of
> placing ">" before the quotes of others and usually reserve quote marks for
> my own use within my own contributions.
Hi jc
No harm really. If my words came across as meaning "it's all unknowable"
then I failed in conveying ideas I was attempting to convey.
>
> But I can certainly see how that was unclear in the above and thank you for
> helping me to see that.
>
> >This isn't meant as an "arrogant"
> >statement and I do not consider my point of view "defeatist".
>
> And on further reflection, "arrogant" was definitely a poor choice of
> words. For while it is possible to pronounce "It's all unknowable" in an
> arrogant fashion, does that it follow that you whom I'm addressing are
> guilty of this? Of course not. I did couch this term with "seems" but
> still it has derogatory connatation that probably don't belong. After all,
> from the very fact that you are here sharing this pursuit of deeper
> understanding I can guess that you are probably a very high quality person
> and not arrogant at all. Arrogant people don't like being challenged and
> this is challenging forum!
>
> But with that cleared up, I still maintain that the exact quote I disagree
> with is faulty.
>
> Maybe instead of being arrogant yourself you are the victim of arrogance.
> Maybe Somebody arrogantly pronounced to you that:
>
> >we will (n)ever understand nature
> >of reality or nature of self
>
> and ever since the idea has got stuck in your head, stopping you from
> trying a little harder?
>
> Who did this to you?
jc, often times what we see in others is a mirror of ourselves. Perhaps
you should be asking someone else these questions?
>
> >Pirsig
> >discusses along these same lines when he compares a hand full of sand on
> >a
> >beach as all we can ever know of this immensity we call reality.
>
> The guilty party! So I'll take issue with the man himself. But first I'd
> have to dig up my old issue of ZAMM, but I think I loaned the last one out
> so I'll have to do my best from memory... hmmm... I believe he was talking
> about the senses, no? Consciousnous - understanding - is far different
> from assimilating sensory stimuli. Patterns of values and values of
> patterns have the ability to hold whole worlds in a cup of sand. What the
> heck is silicon made of? But I digress...
>
> I make the simple assertion that the statement "Reality in its Totallity is
> unknowable" is mere conjecture and very non-logical and philosophically
> weak and unfit of a place within the MOQ. Is the point conceded or
> challenged?
jc, are you able to define Quality? Is anyone? If so, you are correct
and I concede your point. If not, then do you concede mine? :)
>
> >So. My
> >statement is not "it's all unknowable" but rather: Totality, all which
> >we
> >are capable of placing value on, is merely a hand full of sand on an
> >endless beach.
>
> Remember, all this is only an allegory ;-)
>
> (and technically, all we are capable of placing value on is always all
> there ever is)
jc, everything is an allegory. However, in placing value we define
reality while Dynamic Quality cannot be defined or conceptualized in any
fashion. So I both agree and disagree with you here.
>
> (snip)
>
> >
> >jc, my attributed quote is in response to what I see as DMB's static
> >quality outlook upon our examination of morals in Pirsig's MOQ.
>
> I could observe some signs of that, sure. But I usually prefer to focus on
> the words and let the personalities blur. But re-reading David's post I
> have to say I agree with most of what he said and disagree with your main
> points.
jc, in fact, I find that I often agree with David B. as well and find
his posts well thought and intriguing. However,
in this case I do not agree. It may seem a minor semantic disagreement
really
but there are major underlying implications.
>It appears to me that you go right to the heart of the matter in
> your reply:
>
> >Pirsig
> >does not state that reality is composed of different kinds of morality,
> >but that reality IS morality. Pirsig's MOQ is not concerned with truth
> >but Quality.
> >
> >Dan
>
> Before I begin, I want you to know this is not a personal attack, it's a
> literal
> one. Well not "literally" literal but you know what I mean;)
>
> Also, as long as we're blurring the personality-focus, let's turn up the
> blur factor on our beloved RMP - whom I revere like today's true prophet
> but neverthess, I'd rather not get into whether he was saying this or
> you've misunderstood him or whatever. Let's focus on the ideas alone.
>
> Assertion 1:
>
> Quality and morality are
> identical.
>
> Assertion 2:
>
> Quality and Truth are different
>
> Proof 1:
>
> Quality has to be understood in the context of MoQ of course, the
> underlying pattern of values in which all is contained. But what is meant
> by morality?
>
> Morality is always is within the context of a culture. You could easily
> broaden this to include non-human patterns and call them "cultures" of a
> sort, and show how the rules in which they operate are therefore a kind of
> morality. The laws of cause and effect on a non-organic pattern. This is
> stretching the term since morality also has the connotation of choice - but
> I won't argue that point for fear of stepping on quantonic toes. [Nostalgic smile.:)] But even
> concedeing so, that morality occurs on all levels, this morality is always
> within a specific context of that level and thus a virtually infinite
> species of morality.
>
> There's only one Quality.
>
> Thus Quality and morality are completely different.
jc, from Ken Clark's wonderful "Some notes on Quality" email of 11/15/99
(thanks Ken!):
"P97 Because Quality is morality. Make no mistake about it. They're
identical. And if Quality is the primary reality of the world then that
means morality is also the primary reality of the world. The world is
primarily a moral order."
This is very important - Quality and morality are identical. Pirsig is
adamant about this and implores us to make no mistake about it. If we
state there are many
kinds of moral codes, then we would be interpreting MOQ in a correct
fashion. But saying there are many kinds of morals is improper and leads
to confusion.
Incidentally, this also seems to answer Ken Clark's concerns in his
email
of 11/12/99:
"The point at which I become confused is when I try to apply quality to
human interactions that may have nothing to do with universal morality.
This thread of confusion seems to me to also run through Pirsig's books
as
well as the squad."
Quality and morality are identical. There are not many kinds of Quality
nor many kinds of morality. I do not believe this thread of confusion
runs through Pirsig's books unless interpreted so.
jc, you also mention "the laws of cause and effect". On causation from
Ken's email:
"CAUSATION- P103 In the MoQ causation of a metaphysical term that can be
replaced by value. To say that A causes B or to say that B values
Precondition A is to say the same thing. The term cause can be struck
out
completely from a scientific description of the universe without any
loss
of
accuracy or completeness.
The word cause implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning
of
value is one of preference."
>
> Proof 2:
>
> Truth. What is truth? Great question, hard to answer. Let's consider a
> simple statement: fire burns. Is that statement true? Let's test it.
> I'll stick my hand in this flame. Ouch. Yes, fire does burn. How do I
> know that statement is true?
>
> Because I experienced a lower quality condition when I disbelieved the truth.
> When you examine it, you find that Truth is simply that which leads to
> Quality. The two terms are inseperable.
>
> The most elegant refutation I could give isn't original with me, but it
> goes like this: Truth is beauty and beauty truth. This is all we know and
> all we need to know.
>
> It should be obvious that he's talking about Quality. Thus:
>
> Quality and Truth are identical.
jc, I am very glad you disagree with me! :) Seriously though, in
reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, how can you state
Quality and truth as being identical? What about Phaedrus' horror when
he discovered how Quality had been usurped by truth?
And in Lila, from Ken's email:
P99-100 Unlike SoM the MoQ does not insist on a single exclusive truth.
If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we are
permitted only one construction of things, that which corresponds to the
objective world. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate
reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to
exist.
Then one doesn't seek the absolute truth. one seeks instead the highest
quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if
the
past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken
provisionally, as useful until something better comes along (MANY
TRUTHS)
jc, truth and Quality are identical? No. Not in Pirsig's MOQ.
>
> -----------------
>
> I apologize to any professional logicians out there over my sloppy use of
> the term "proof", and of course for all my silly sophist tricks - appeal to
> authority, etc - and I'd welcome any input or refinement, but I think with
> some work I could make good arguments for either of my points.
jc, thank you for your comments and thoughts. However, I am unswayed by
your arguments.
Best wishes,
Dan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST