[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[MarshaV]

Mary, this is a wonderful post!   - marsha 




On Jun 17, 2010, at 10:26 PM, Mary wrote:

> 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
> 
> 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


 
___