[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Mary]

Dan throws a smoke bomb and runs for the door.

> Dan:
> 
> We perceive Dynamic Quality all the time. And no, Platt isn't on
> target. Not even in the ballpark.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Yes, we perceive Dynamic Quality all the time, and in the instant we do it
is no longer Dynamic Quality - it's Static Quality.

Best,
Mary
....
[Dan said]
> 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
> >
> 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