[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[MarshaV]

Mary,

Well, what I mean is that you seem to write what is on my mind in the 
most beautiful prose, while I seem unable to put together a coherent 
sentence, so I write my appreciation.  


Marsha  


On Jun 18, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Mary wrote:

> 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
> 
> 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


 
___