[MD] DQ: to define or undefine

[John Carl]

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>

Not to me, it doesn't.  Because DQ generates sq, it's really a monism that
has a static aspect and a dynamic aspect.  These aren't opposite, they are
um... a descending scale of realization.



> 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)?
>
>

John:

Exactly.  Trust Dan the man to find the problem with the oppositional pairs
view.



> [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.



John:

And trust Krimel the astute critic to jump the hell all over the revealed
fallacy!

Krimel:


> 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.
>
>
John:

Phew Krimel!  You skewer the oppositional view well.  But I don't find you
addressing the deeper monism at all.

I say:

DQ is that definitionaly undefined aspect of Quality which is realized in
experience and when defined intellectualy becomes sq.

All the MoQ is sq about DQ

 Krimel:

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.
>
> John:

Bastard!  I'd like to meet this "Paul Turner" someday and ask him if he's
satisfied with himself for causing so much tour-moil.


Krimel:


> 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]
>
>
John:

Ok.  I take the "bastard" comment back.  That was a high quality exchange
and the only reason "Paul Turner letter" keeps percolating to the top is
that he must have been good at getting down to the roots.

Which, after all, is what metaphysics is all about, eh?

Krimel:


> 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.
>
>

John:

Well good on you, mr. krimel.  There's nothing I admire so much as loyalty
in an avatar.

Krimel:

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.
>
>
John:

Ok, I will.  I pick the existentialist flavor of the month:   Life is sq in
process of defining DQ.

You gotta problem with that?

I'll give you time to check with your owner.

Krimel:

Pirsig does more or less create the problem in Lila by failing to
> distinguish between Quality and Dynamic Quality.



John:

Ok, wrong.  "Failing" is the wrong word.  I think you want "refusing" here.
DQ fits into a degenerate scheme.  Quality remains obdurate and pristine.
It was a goal he had and this formulation accomplishes the goal nicely so I
don't see where you get "failure".




> 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.
>
>

John:

Well.  I sorta think it can.  I add a perspective not apparent to some of
Pirisig's philosophical development from the outset, that of Absolute
Idealism, but he does embrace it at the end in the Copleston annotations on
Bradley.  So, I have boldly offered the postulation that DQ can be defined,
but only in direct experience and that formulation hasn't been challenged.
Perhaps it's been lurking, waiting for you Krimel.  Give it a shot.  What
the heck.




Krimel:



> 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.
>
>
John:

ok.  yawn.  the mechanistic worldview of a moronist at work.  How they love
the clockworks metaphors!

Get in tune with the seventh millinium Krimel.

 Krimel:

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?
>
>
John:

Talk about proving my point.  There are so many problems with this I
wouldn't know where to begin.  Start with a brick, is my motto:


K: Change is hard to define.

J: Definition only occurs with contrast (change)

K: Nevertheless we are biologically programmed

J:  Huh?  by what?  by who?  by How?

K: to detect change pre-intellectually.

J:  O

J: M

J: G

J:  what a steaming pile of putrid confusion.  WTF is that suppposed to
mean?  I mean, Pre-intellectually?  Change, differentiation, distinction IS,
I repeat IS, the intellectuality of existence.  There ain't no
pre-intellectual distinction or perception of change.  That obviates the
meaning of intellect and distinction in one fell blow.

A realization:  Sometimes a two-fer ain't a good thing.

K:  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?

J:  (pause)




I really stopped here Krimel.  I think you're wrong.  But the reason I think
you're wrong has to do with more complicated reasoning than I can just
flippantly toss off at the moment.

For one thing, I have trouble with "sufficiently complex nervous system"

For another, I have a problem with "orienting"

It seems to me that what we're talking about is the fruit of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil.  And that's a human thing, not  animal.  I don't
think it's a "bad" thing when a bobcat eats a chicken or a wasp stings a
child.  Those labels are applied by intellect and thus presupposed by
"orienting".

But this seems to me to venture into territory,
not-at-the-moment-under-discussion, so I wanna perpetuate my pause and go
onto the rest.  We'll come back if you wanna.

K:   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.



J:

Huh?  I wouldn't label a constant as DQ, just the opposite in fact.

K:


> 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.
>

J:

Yeah, a common response of technological man.  Habituated Ignorance.

K:


> Statements made about SQ tend easier to understand and have more predictive
> Value.



J:

duh.

K:

But We can and do make statements about DQ all the time.


J:

speak for yerself, whiteman.

 K:

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.
>
>
J:  Plbbbbttt.  You gotta weird idea about "DQ".  This issue is deeper than
it seems with you.


K:



> 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.
>
>

J:

Ok, now you're starting to sound like Bo. imo, you need a good dose of Mary
on this.

K:


> Dynamic _means_ change.
>

J:

Wrong.

 K:

Static _means_ no change.
>


J:

Wrong again.  Static can refer to predictable change.  Dynamic means more
than change.  It means unexpected change.

K:


> Quality in the MoQ _means_, can't say for sure.
>


J:

Smartest thing you've said so far is "not sure"

K:



> It seems pretty easy but I am guessing it's not.
> We'll see.
>
>
J:

Hey, if you want "easy", watch tv.

Metaphysics ain't for sissies.