[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Mary]

Thanks, Marsha!  You've said that to me before and I didn't acknowledge it -
because I didn't know how.  Aw shucks :)  Really glad to know I'm not
laboring alone. ;)

Mary

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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