From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon May 09 2005 - 08:44:19 BST
Mark, I certainly do not believe you have the wrong end of any stick there.
I can't answer you specific questions succinctly, but my interest in
Pirsigian Quality is from a very similar angle ...
Where you talk of social interactions - I'm talking of organisational
behaviours. But the aspects you point to are pretty much the same -
human "rationalisations" of their own and other peoples "intents" in
what they say and do, (and say they do). I notice you use the word
"manipulate" in there, where I've used "intent". Personally I don't
see this as predominantly a conspiratorial / machivellian problem,
more a memetic problem - the rationalisation itself is a deeply
evolved human process - it's almost impossible for us to do otherwise.
My angle is that the rationalisations hold mis-placed faith in an
objectivity that is not really there, a defensive simplification, a
kind of hypocrisy - hence the Quality interaction to redress the
subjective balance. Exactly how, I'm still working on :-)
Welcome.
Ian Glendinning
On 5/9/05, Mark <mark@antelope.nildram.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Hello everyone! Just thought I'd quickly post to introduce myself and
> ask a few little questions, these are probably rather silly questions
> as I'm still quite new to this theory and not quite understanding it
> entirely..
>
> First of all, is there a clear understanding of how a humans can
> manipulate Quality? Our bodies can consciously manipulate matter and
> energy but I'm given to understand that, under MOQ, Quality is
> separate from both of these. Since people can create works of Quality
> there presumably is some way a human can manipulate Quality too - or
> is the Quality simply introduced outside of the control of the
> creating human? I presume we cannot consciously create quality, or
> else nobody would ever produce a bad artwork unless they meant to..
>
> Secondly, how is Quality deemed to behave with regard to social
> interactions? It would certainly explain a number of apparant
> paradoxes in social interaction, such as the fact that people can respond
> completely differently to two other people saying essentially the same
> thing, and when called on it attribute it to 'confidence', 'body
> language', 'congrence' and other things - which they then cannot
> explain. It would make sense to say that this was their rationalisation of their
> social brain's response to the different Quality inherent in the
> statements, which were identical in all other significant properties.
>
> Or am I getting completely the wrong end of the stick here?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Mark mailto:mark@antelope.nildram.co.uk
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 09 2005 - 08:49:15 BST