Hi David, Thank your for your response. You seem to be misunderstanding what I am presenting, and trying to put me in a box of your imagination. Maybe I am not clear, so I will try once again below.
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 7:12 PM, David Harding <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Mark, > > David: I think you still miss the point. It is *Quality* first, then > everything else. Is it a good idea to say that matter is first and before > ideas? Yes. Is it right to say that ultimately, ideas create matter? Yes. > Mark: So far as I can tell, you are saying that it is a good idea to put Quality first. Am I correct in this? Ideas are ideas, like the idea of matter. Perhaps we are saying the same thing here. If so, I agree with you. Matter as we see it does not exist outside of our ideas. Once we have such idea (or concept), then matter comes into existence for us. This is the same thing that Pirsig was trying to say about gravity. He did not mean that we flew off the face of the earth before Newton, that would be ridiculous. > > David: Traditionally, this is a contradiction. Truth does not allow > contradictions to exist. So in SOM, such viewpoint is illogical and not > allowed and we must determine which idea is 'true' or throw out the idea of > truth altogether. However, in the MOQ, we are interested in what is good, > not what is true. It is for this reason that we can say, ultimately, > ideas create what we call 'matter'. But it is also good to say that matter > comes first. > Mark: No, this is not a contradiction, never has been, never will be, it is common sense. We created the concept of matter, or as you put it "what we call matter". There is nothing confusing or contradictory here. Perhaps it is you that find it contradictory. Most of us don't. Ideas are what we pattern the world with. Do you think an electron sees out patterns? No, we created them. Sure, we can also say that the neurons in our brains (matter) creates ideas. It all depends on the point one is trying to make, and how useful the concept is. This is rhetoric, not truth that we provide. What we present depends on what we are trying to say. Ideas creating the idea of matter may be good in one case (although a little redundant), matter creating ideas may be good in another case. You cannot categorically say that one way is always better than another way. This is communication, not proclamation. This is sharing, not incarcerating. > > David: Within the MOQ the focus is on quality not on truth. But does > this mean that what is 'true' is meaningless? No, what is true is what is a > good idea, there is no need to throw out the idea of truth or to stress the > importance of analogies as you do. > Mark: Yes, Quality not Truth. But do you know what this means? That the focus of MOQ is on Quality is a good idea, as you would say. That what is true is a good idea, is a good idea, you would also say. But what are you saying? Are these your rules to bring you meaning? I am fine if they are, but you need to elaborate. I do not throw out Truth, never have, never will. It is you that throws out Truth by making it relative. This is no longer Truth, it is a conditional statement. Let us at least use the same sense of truth. What you are proposing is not Truth. Truth is where you come from to make the proposal to begin with. I have explained my position on what I consider to be Truth very clearly. I would claim that "Quality not Truth" to be a Truth. For you, it is just a good idea. Even that it is a good idea is a good idea. Where do you start from? Are you swimming around in the relative nature of ideas? Drop this relativity stuff, it will lead you nowhere. Start at the beginning. What do you believe in? What is Quality for you? This is not just simply an academic exercise, this is reality. > > > And so, my example was for illustrative purposes, and I will not claim > any > > truth therein. > > David: There is no need to claim that there is a problem here with what > is true. It is not the concept of truth that is the problem here. The > problem is how we treat truth. The MOQ shows that we need not place what > is true ahead of what is good but there is no need to discredit or devalue > the concept of truth. This sentence above points to the crux of your > misunderstanding of the MOQ. > Mark: My statement was simply to warn you not to believe that I found science to be objective, for it is not. We create everything in science. It is creation, not discovery. We form patterns where there were none. I believe it is you that misunderstand MOQ, since you seem to be stuck in a relative world of ideas. This position seems rather flimsy to me. For you MOQ is a good idea. You do not explain what makes it a good idea. You are the one completely discrediting Truth. Truth and Quality are two different animals. You cannot compare a zebra to a snake and say that one is above another. You are completely missing the message of MOQ, something that I keep trying to explain to you, but you twist the argument to make it seem like I am saying something different. Try reading what I say several times before you respond. Your gut reaction is completely off base. > > > All of science is descriptive, that is its purpose. In > > order to approach this from a philosophical or even metaphysical point of > > view, we must rely on analogy. > > David: There is no need to change the value of truth in this way. You > need not change what is intellectually meaningful from 'truth' to 'we must > rely on analogy'. True ideas were just as good as they always were both > pre and post MOQ. The important thing is that we recognise how good ideas > are and rank them accordingly depending on the situation. It is quality > first, truth second. > Mark: What are you talking about "changing the value of truth"? Truth is truth. Are you saying that one truth is better than another in some kind of absolute sense? How can you say that I am changing the value of truth, when it is you who are saying that truth is a good idea? Your truth is not truth at all, your truth is relative, which makes it conditional. You sound like a lawyer, saying "if this truth is good, then that truth is not". Truth is truth, how do you go about comparing them? What do you mean that true ideas are always as good as they used to be? You are not making any sense here. There is a difference between truth and a good idea. Again, you are stuck in some kind of relative world where anything goes so long as we think it is a good idea. You are making up truth. Is your "true ideas as good", a truth, or is it an idea? For you, Truth is whatever you want it to be. The 1960's are long gone. > > > The science I present is just that. That > > is, our "understanding" of one discipline is applied to another > discipline. > > The sum total is considered to be knowledge, which we create. The > > assumption is that we create this knowledge from something other than > > knowledge itself. > > David: The incorrect assumption of science is the SOM one which states > that matter and truth is fundamental. The MOQ states that it is quality > not matter or truth which is fundamental. > Mark: The incorrect assumption of science is the belief that we are uncovering something rather than creating something. There is no way to find Quality or DQ, we can only create it. The only way to be aware of DQ is to create such awareness. It is not something floating by that we need to jump on to. It is not some wind that we need to feel. It is a mode of awareness. It is something that we cultivate and appreciate. The MOQ presents an idea, by your logic. You say it is a good idea that Quality is fundamental. The proof would be in how you use this idea in your daily life, something that you do not want to talk about; so I just have to take your word for it. If you make the statement that it is "quality, not matter or truth which is fundamental", you need to support that statement. You cannot claim ignorance and say "that's just the way it is". That is not philosophical, that is a religion. A quality Intellectual Pattern is more than just a pronouncement. You can shout it from the rooftops all you want, that that does not give it quality. > > > Knowledge can be considered as a dead end (SQ), unless we apply this > > knowledge to expand on our awareness. This expansion is a dynamic > process, > > and comes before SQ, and can be considered to reside in what I term > > "creativity". Through simple subtraction, I call this process DQ. > > Abstract thinking, as that which is controlled by the intellectual level, > > can be considered as one such process, and therefore falls into the realm > > of DQ. Please remember that just because I have put this to words, this > > does not make such DQ into SQ. Words are simply methods for > communication. > > What is being communicated lies outside of words. An analogy would be to > > say that the musical instruments involved are not the symphony. The > > instruments are just a means to convey the symphony. > > David: Your emphasis on analogy is unnecessary and not as good as an > emphasis which places quality as fundamental and truth as secondary but > still very valuable. What is true is high quality intellectual patterns. > This is confirmed by Pirsig: > > "In the MOQ.. truth is described as high quality intellectual patterns." - > Lila's Child. > Mark: David, you have created an analogy called Quality, and an analogy called Truth which reflects your intuition of these things. You start with the analogy, and then rank them (somewhat incorrectly). Quality is not above Truth. This would be like saying a red car is above a car. > > > > What you point to is the Ghost of Reason, when you speak of ideas > begetting > > ideas. I think that this may be a more fruitful discussion to bring > > meaning to MOQ. The Ghost of Reason is a powerful analogy within MOQ. > So, > > before I start going on about it, perhaps you can give me your sense of > > this Ghost of Reason, and what it means within your understanding of MOQ. > > Please keep in mind that Pirsig is very specific by saying "what we know > > as matter". He is pointing to idea, and matter as we create it through > the > > first step of creating experience. Does the Ghost of Reason have any > ties > > to DQ, or does it exist as a bubble on its own? > > David: Ideas do not beget ideas. Quality begets ideas. It is Quality > and then everything else, including ideas second. How valuable an idea is > depends on how good it is. The ghost of reason is Quality. In ZMM > Phaedrus could sense there was something not quite right with our > application of reason but he couldn't figure it out.. Quality was the key. > It haunts SOM to this day. SOM is full of paradoxes. How do these > paradoxes exist? They exist in a world which only values truth above all > else. Are paradoxes any good? That is, do they represent our everyday > experience beautifully? No, they do not. Therefore paradoxes aren't very > valuable or true and thus not worth worrying about.. > Mark: Please explain what you mean by Quality begets ideas. This seems like a pronouncement without explanation. NO! The ghost of reason is not Quality, it is SQ. You are very confused here, and perhaps we need to start another thread on this topic. Reason is something we create. Even reasoning about Quality is a ghost, can't you see that?! Paradoxes are enormously valuable, since they give us an impetus to get out of them. Your ideas about ideas is one such paradox. You seem to have no ground to stand on in your world of ideas . What are you talking about "haunting SOM"? Are you analogizing Quality to SOM as some kind of evil ghost? What is with these analogies? What do you mean by haunting? Please be clear with what you present, because you seem to be simply making pronouncements without any support. How does Quality "haunt" SOM? Is it scary? > > > Please remember that Bohr's observation, is a description, and cannot be > > considered as true or even real. This same observation can be dealt with > > by many descriptions. So let us not be fooled by science and its claims > to > > be providing Truth. Science is simply ideas. > > David: Bohr's observation is just as real as every other idea ever thought > of. *How* real it is depends on how good it is. This is why ranking is > imperative to the MOQ. We use ideas based on how good they are. Science is > very good at determining truth. What is true is high quality intellectual > patterns. The scientific method is an excellent way of determining what is > true. > NO, ranking is not imperative in MOQ, that would make it relativism. We have already gone down that path, read some of dmb's stuff. You are making MOQ into some kind of parlor game, where we have curtains we cannot look behind, and lucky winners based on their "goodness". I am just waiting for you to pull out the ouija board to "contact" Quality. Quality is not relative, it is absolute. Things that fall under MOQ are not relative either. There is nothing to make them relative to. Yes, Bohrs idea is an idea. How do you judge how good it is? What has it done for you lately? So far as I can tell, not much has come out of it except for more math. Perhaps I am wrong. The scientific method has no place in truth. The scientific method develops constructs, not truth. It presents models for reality, not truth. If I present you a model for a new high rise development, would you call it true? > Finally, we cannot assign a causal correlation between ideas and that > which > > they are describing in a cause-effect manner. Ideas are ideas, and what > > they seek to describe are not ideas, but reality as we deal with it. I > > don't want us to get stuck with a brain in a vat argument. It is > important > > to break free of the notion that all is idea, or idealism. To not break > > free simply results in a paradox, where Quality is idea and can not > > therefore result in idea as a separate thing. We need to explore beyond > > the world as idea. > > David: I agree. Quality creates ideas. Therefore, ideas are > intellectual patterns of value. That is, they are static quality which has > captured the undefined quality. Ideas which are based in quality and not > SOM idealism - whereby everything is an idea including the idea of quality > - can be ranked based on how good they are. The better an idea the more > true it is. True ideas are the most intellectually valuable ideas there > are. This is what I am here to discuss... High quality intellectual > patterns. > Mark: I would not say that Quality creates ideas. It is not an engine of some kind. It is truth itself. You are a bit stuck in this cause-effect/ subject/object world. Quality has no place in that. You are turning Quality into a God. Ideas are not based in Quality, what the heck does that mean? Please be clear. I am also here to discuss your "high quality intellectual patterns", I hope that you present some, rather than just talk about presenting some. > > > Ranking is useful, but not imperative to MOQ. > > Ranking is imperative to the MOQ. The whole structure of the MOQ is based > on ranking one value over another. All else being even - intellectual > values are better than all other static values. > > > Mark: OK, you stick to your relativism, and see where it gets you. I suppose you will make MOQ relative to something else. Where do you stop? Everything you write becomes simply relative. There is no place that seems to be grounded. Even Quality is relative for you. What is it relative to? What is an idea about Quality relative to? It is an idea. Who decides what idea is good and which is bad? Is there a committee for this? Who is in charge of doling out merit points for goodness? Is there a big billboard that shows todays #1 idea? Do we get to vote on it? Do we get to throw some off the island? You are swimming in a whirlpool that is dragging you down. There is nothing to grab hold of to save you since everything is relative to something else and all being pulled down together. It is all going down the tubes, because nothing is fixed. Everything is ranked according to everything else, by the master ranker. This ranker is rank from ranking. The ranker needs to be ranked but then the new top ranker is ranked in turn. Rankers have forgotten what ranking means because they are self-ranked and have no ranking to rank. The ranker becomes the rankee and is ranked by the ranker who was rankee. The swirling gets faster, and no matter how much ranking is done, there is no way out. Rankers have nothing to rank themselves with except other rankers who are using the same ranking system to do the ranking of rankers. The rankers have become wankers. I am trying to give you a way out. Thanks, David, please excuse the rhetoric, it is simply for effect and not to be taken personally. If these discussions are not fun, then why have them, right? Mark Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
