[MD] DQ: to define or undefine

[Krimel]

Dan:
I think this is the source of my discomfort: pairs of opposites define
each other. So if we take Dynamic and static as pairs of opposites, we
can define each by the other, right? And Dynamic Quality defined is
static quality. But static quality defined is not Dynamic Quality.

dmb:
 In the same way, "dynamic" means "not static" and vice versa. Since
this is an intellectual distinction within a metaphysical system, both
terms are subordinate to undivided Quality itself. Please notice also
that undivided quality is contrasted with any such pairs of opposites,
which ARE divided.

Dan:
So you're saying Dynamic Quality and static quality are intellectual
distinctions, divided pairs of opposites in a metaphysical system,
contrasted with undivided Quality. That sounds right.

But doesn't Robert Pirsig say that Dynamic Quality in LILA refers to
the Quality of ZMM? I thought I read that somewhere. If so, how can
Dynamic Quality and static quality be contrasted with itself
(undivided quality)?

[Krimel]
This I think is a critical problem for the MoQ. I think it is at the very
heart of many of the disagreements that have run throughout this forum for
years on end. My various sparing partners over the past five years will no
doubt know where I am going to head with this but perhaps for some of the
noobs and perhaps because I think it will tie up a lot of loose ends, here
goes:

If we return to the original Taoist formulation of this, using the ever
popular pseudo-math, it should look something like this:

Quality = Tao = Undefined 
DQ = Active 
SQ = Static 

In Taoism DQ/SQ Active/Static are simply pairs of opposites. Lao Tsu speaks
of the nature of all such pairs in the way that Dan mentions above, "...as
pairs of opposites, we can define each by the other, right?"

I would say, "Right, Dan." 
But that is not strong enough.
Maybe something more like, "Frickin' A, Dan!" 

But Dan immediately drifts off track with: "And Dynamic Quality defined is
static quality. But static quality defined is not Dynamic Quality."

Dave, tags it nicely with, "In the same way, "dynamic" means "not static"
and vice versa. Since this is an intellectual distinction within a
metaphysical system, both terms are subordinate to undivided Quality itself.
Please notice also that undivided quality is contrasted with any such pairs
of opposites, which ARE divided."

What that means is that DQ is NOT undefinable. DQ is just the opposite of
SQ. SQ is patterns that don't change and DQ is patterns that do change. 

I think the particular conversation between Dan and Dave continued to drift
off track about this time but Dan raised the real source of the problem with
this:

"But doesn't Robert Pirsig say that Dynamic Quality in LILA refers to the
Quality of ZMM? I thought I read that somewhere. If so, how can Dynamic
Quality and static quality be contrasted with itself (undivided quality)?"

Why yes, Dan he did. And oddly enough the source of the confusion is another
cryptic message to and from Paul Turner. I think this one is far more
significant that the one that has befuddled BO for lo these many years.

It went something like this: on 11/11/2005 Paul submitted a post laying out
the problem as he saw it. It is easy to find in the archives so I will only
give my own highly biased summary. Paul claimed that in resolving most of
the disputes in the MoQ we should use as a rule of thumb the idea that Lila
is later than ZMM and if there is a difference between the two, Lila trumps
ZMM for purposes of interpretation of Pirsig's meaning.

He had written to Pirsig about this and specifically the relationship
between Quality, SQ and DQ. This was Pirsig's reply:

"When ZMM was written there was no division between Dynamic Quality and
static quality and the term Quality then meant what is now meant by Dynamic
Quality.  Today I tend to think of Quality as covering both Dynamic and
static quality.  So far no problems have arisen with this confusion of terms
but if they do arise I would guess that they could be eliminated by
refraining from using the term Quality alone."
[Pirsig to Turner, November 2005] 

Case found this utterly outrageous when it was first posted and I carry the
torch of his undiminished outrage to this day. I have no wish to engage in a
10 year Bo-esque tirade but if I did, this would be the place to do it.

In a single swoop, almost as an afterthought, Pirsig removed Quality from
the Metaphysics of Quality. 

As a result, we have these often paradoxical arguments about DQ being
undefined until we notice it then it becomes SQ and so there is no DQ and
pick your favorite flavor of that argument.

Pirsig does more or less create the problem in Lila by failing to
distinguish between Quality and Dynamic Quality. He uses them
interchangeably and as a result often incorrectly. I don't think it is hard
to read past these errors and to forgive him for his enthusiastic
applications of the ideas represented but a literal reading without this
filter produces weird effects.

Bob claims to read this forum but one can hardly see how closely he is
reading when he says, "So far no problems have arisen with this confusion of
terms..."

Please, someone tell me why DQ can't be defined. 

It is hard to define and has proven historically hard to define. For example
civilization really began when people accepted certain static standards,
vocabularies and units of measurement. It is hard to build a pyramid if you
can't talk to the workers or measure how much longer they need to make the
north side. Spatial measurement helped construct the ancient worlds because
they were static and could be describe relatively easily. 

Time or change was much more difficult. Galileo had to rely on the
regularity of his pulse for lack of a more accurate clock. Even when crude
measurements could be made, motion is hard to understand. Acceleration and
deceleration require noticing the change in rate of motion. This takes not
only proper hardware (clocks) but software (formulas) to describe. 

Change is hard to define. Nevertheless we are biologically programmed to
detect change pre-intellectually. All animals with sufficiently complex
nervous systems display what is known as an orienting response. When
something changes in the environment, we orient our senses in the direction
of the change so that we can determine it's Value; is this good or is this
bad? 

Likewise we have a habituation response that causes us to ignore constants
(DQ) in the environment like ticking clocks or subway trains rolling by our
apartment windows. I notice when the A/C unit in my house clicks on or off.
That change produces and orienting response. But as the air drones though
the ventilation system I quick habituate to the sound and ignore it.

Statements made about SQ tend easier to understand and have more predictive
Value. But We can and do make statements about DQ all the time. While
driving we look to measurements of velocity and guess at the distances
between the other cars around us. We alter the position of the steering
wheel to keep our distance from other drivers we speed up and slow down
these are all DQ response to DQ change in the flow of traffic. There is no
reason we can't define and even quantify those changes if it suits our
purposes.

What cannot be defined is the Quality that results from the mingling of SQ
and DQ. Or if you prefer Pirsig's approach, looking at the mingling of SQ
and DQ tells us something, but not enough there is never enough, about the
Quality that has spun them off in its wake.

Dynamic _means_ change. 
Static _means_ no change. 
Quality in the MoQ _means_, can't say for sure. 
It seems pretty easy but I am guessing it's not. 
We'll see.