[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Mary]

Hi DMB, Platt, Bo,

> [dmb had said]
> > > > I mean, the analytic knife has to cut somewhere so that even the
> > > > DQ/sq distinction counts as a pair of opposites.
> 
[Mary Replies] 

I suppose, but I have the uneasy feeling we aren't talking about quite the
same thing.  Pirsig makes a distinction between Static and Dynamic Quality
yet maintaining that both are still Quality.  Sort of like the difference
you might make between a book on the shelf and one yet to be written.  If
you are discussing the two, you would still call both of them books even
though one can be experienced and one cannot.  One is defined and knowable
and one is not.  How else would you refer to a book that's yet to be written
but as a book, since if it ever is realized it will be as, well, a book?  

When he's discussing the analytical knife, this DQ/SQ split isn't what he's
talking about.  We never see that split.  All we see is the static fallout,
the SQ.  He's trying to get us to take a grip on how we handle the
experience, the SQ.  This is the cut he is talking about through most of ZMM
because it's this cut that has the most immediate effect on our lives. 

If there is a difference between DQ and SQ what do you think it is?  The
only clue Pirsig gives about the question is to say that one is experienced
and the other is not.  One can be defined and the other cannot.  Well, what
does that mean, especially when he says that all is Quality, all is Value,
all is Morals?  It simply means there is no difference.  Quality is the same
whether you put an "S" in front of it or a "D".  Whether you can define it
or not.  Whether you experience it or not.  There is no split.  The only
split would be an artificial one you might make in your head.

But the analytic knife looms large in his thoughts.  It is a concept with a
purpose.  It has legs.  You don't have any choice about the split between
Dynamic and Static.  That one is made for you.  How could it be otherwise?
The only split possible there is between the known and the unknown.  No
choice really.  You can't make a lot of decisions about the unknown, can
you?  So what's the split all about?  Why does he harp on it so?  

If you don't get a chance at the first cut, where is your first opportunity
after that?  Well, once you've experienced Quality, then you get to make
some choices for the first time.  You could follow Pirsig and say, "that was
an experience of Quality", but we know most people don't automatically do
that.  We do know that they say things like, "I just experienced an event,
or an object, or a thought."  They assume they are an independent entity
unto themselves and they had an objective experience that happened to
_them_.  What Pirsig takes great pains to point out is that the _them_ that
had the experience is a fiction.  He says there is no _them_ different in
kind from the experience itself.  That is the fallacy.  The first cut we
make is based on bad assumptions, invalid assumptions about "who" we are,
"where" we are, and "what's" going on.  From that point onward, every
question we ask is a bad question and every derivative assumption we make is
based on false premises.  So it is that the choice you make about that first
cut of experience can lead you closer to Quality or farther from it.

But if we can't know anything about DQ, if it's always "unknowable", what's
the use of it?  Why is it important to Pirsig that there be Dynamic and
Static Quality?  Why did he go to such lengths to incorporate DQ into his
metaphysics if he couldn't even define it?  Makes him sound like a crackpot
or a mystic, right?  

He did it because he had no choice.  You can't have Static Quality without
Dynamic Quality to bring it into existence.  To formulate his metaphysics he
had to work backward, rejecting one assumption at a time.  He had to peel
the onion back until finally he reached the point where there was nothing
left. Well, maybe that's a bad analogy?  I couldn't tell you what's at the
center of an onion.  I've peeled and cut up a million of them, but never
paid attention.  Maybe there is a "seed" or something at the center of an
onion?  I don't know, but for purposes of our discussion, let's say there
isn't.  Let's say you can stand in your kitchen, if you are so inclined, and
spend a whole day carefully peeling one layer at a time off an onion until
it isn't an onion anymore.  It isn't anything.  Your hand is empty.  Without
Dynamic Quality, that's what the MoQ would be like.  Without Dynamic
Quality, where would Static Quality come from?

Without Dynamic Quality, how would Static Quality be any different from
objective reality?  Wouldn't Static Quality itself represent the fundamental
objective reality of the world then?  You bet.  Nothing else it could be.
Without Dynamic Quality, the "world as we know it" - where I want you to pay
special attention to the idea of "we" and "know" and "it", would be
absolutely all there is.  Static "things", "ideas", and "individuals" would
be indeed the primary empirical reality.  I would not argue with you,
either.  And if you told me that this thing has Quality but that thing
doesn't, who am I to disagree?  What would give me any moral authority to
say otherwise?  Who would care what I say anyway, since we're all equal?  My
opinion is no better than yours, and both are just opinions, so I guess we
could argue until eternity.  

But that's not all.  What gets lost in all this is that Pirsig very
carefully chose three different words to represent the same concept.  Three
words that in normal usage are not even interchangeable.  Quality, Values,
and Morals are all the same exact thing for Pirsig.  There is a reason.  He
did not choose these words carelessly.  But I'm getting tired and that
discussion will have to be for another day.  Maybe you'd like to weigh in?

Best,
Mary

> [Bo said]
> > > The great metaphysical revolution took place when everything became
> > > Quality. Thus the DQ/SQ division is not anything like the S/O split
> > > (mind you: the analytical knife always cuts S/O) but an internal
> > > arrangement - the static levels are value levels - not like the S
> > > and O that are worlds apart.
> 
> [Platt said]
> > > If I understand correctly, you're saying that dualistic thinking
> > > based on divisions and "cuts" is SOM. The MOQ revolution is the
> > > transcendence of dualistic thinking by value understanding, not
> > > another SOM (intellectual) theory.
> 
> At least "the knife" that P. speaks of in ZAMM was cutting S/O-ishly,
> i.e. intellectually, while intelligence in MOQ's service will cut
> DQ/SQ-
> ishly. It may be dualistic, but without SOM's bleak and paradox-
> inducing  consequences.
> 
> > > In other words, the MOQ perspective reveals a world not of
> observers
> > > and observed as seen from the dualistic viewpoint, but a world of
> > > values..
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> > > In the value world, distinctions are made on a vertical/horizontal
> > > axis whereby the vertical axis is the evolutionary value hierarchy
> > > and the horizontal axis is a high-low value spectrum. In addition,
> > > there's a creative force of dynamic value.
> 
> Sounds good. Regarding the vertical (diagram) I have maintained it
> regarding the MOQ. No "Reality=Quality" box that splits into DQ and
> SQ, merely "DQ " on top and "SQ" (connected with a line) under it, the
> latter may be internally and horizontally partitioned.
> 
> > > In this way, the MOQ releases us from an illusory dualistic reality
> > > to a value- experience reality where one does not automatically see
> > > and say, "That's a small dog, or a brown and white dog, or a mixed
> > > breed dog," but "That's a good dog," or better yet, simply "Ah,
> so."
> 
> Well, when on "the high metaphysical ground" this is may be so, but
> when back in the static realm - with intellect our base camp - we may
> speak/think like we used to, but the Q-knowledge remains.
> 
> > > Am I on target?
> 
> [Mary Replies]
> > I think you are, Platt.  The so-called Dq/Sq split is not really a
> > split for us at all since we cannot perceive DQ.  In the instant we
> do
> > it has already become SQ, so there is no perceived split and no
> choice
> > has been made.  It just is.  The analytical knife comes into play
> > after the SQ has been perceived, at which point Pirsig is saying that
> > the S/O split we choose to make is just that - a division we have
> > chosen.  He tries to persuade us that there is another choice -
> > perception as patterns of value.
> 
> Even if DQ is ephemeral the DQ/SQ is the matrix when "on the high
> ground",  when back on the plains however our analysis may well be
> intellectual (S/O-ish) but no longer oppressed by SOM's metaphysical
> implications.
> 
> Hope we - "the marvelous few" - agree here  ;-)
> 
> > The S/O split devalues Quality, placing recognition of Quality as a
> > lower form of perception than the recognition of the Subjects and
> > Objects as entities in and of themselves.
> 
> Right SOM places qualities within the subjective realm and as such of
> secondary, dubious existence. Objectivity is its one sure criterion.
> 
> > Pirsig points out that this is wrong, and has lead to our fundamental
> > confusion on the whole subject.  When what is Quality is demoted to a
> > subjective attribute then morals are relative, debatable, and no
> > consistent 'opinion' can be hoped for.  When morals and value are
> > demoted to the status of attribute, then the invention of the
> > thermonuclear bomb had only 'relative' moral implications.  There was
> > never a good reason not to do it.  If all the world is subjects and
> > objects, then the discovery of any new 'object' is always "the good"
> > since we live in a world where nothing has higher status than
> subjects
> > contemplating objects. That's all there is.  It is only after the
> fact
> > that we could debate the moral value of doing science in that
> > direction, and this debate was weak from the start since it could
> only
> > deal with a subjective, relative morality, not a universal one.
> 
> Wow! Quite "chautauqua" ;-)
> 
> 
> Bodvar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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