[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Platt & Bo,
>
>> [dmb said]
>> > I mean, the analytic knife has to cut somewhere so that even the
>> DQ/sq
>> > distinction counts as a pair of opposites.


"Dynamic Quality is value and thus is very easily distinguished.
When one creates a word for it and tries to distinguish this word from
other words in a set of static intellectual patterns, confusion results.
But the confusion is caused by the static patterns that seek to
subordinate Dynamic Quality to themselves." [Robert Pirsig, LILA'S CHILD]

Dan:
I suspect that to count "it" as a pair of opposites with static
quality is to subordinate Dynamic Quality.

So let me ask: what exactly is a DQ/sq distinction? and how does it
count as a pair of opposites? do you have examples?

>>
> [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.
>>
>> 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..
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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."
>>
>> 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.


Dan:

We perceive Dynamic Quality all the time. And no, Platt isn't on
target. Not even in the ballpark.

Thank you,

Dan



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.
>
> 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.  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.
>
> Best,
> Mary
>
> 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
>