[MD] Defining Dynamic Quality

[Scott Roberts]

DMB,

Scott offered "another definition of DQ under the name Nirvana":
"Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana." (Merrell-Wolff)
"When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, consciousness of
absence of objects arises.
Consciousness of objects is the Universe.
Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana.
Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and Nirvana,
yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the same."

dmb says:
I think that can easily be compared to Pirsig. The "absence of objects" and
"lack of division" refer to the same undifferentiated experience. I think
that within the metaphysical system that is the MOQ, the universe of
"objects" is our static reality, undifferentiated experience is the Dynamic
ground of that reality, but that ultimately Quality is not divided into
static and Dynamic, otherwise it wouldn't be about the "One".

"In all of the Oriental religions great value is placed on the Sanskrit
doctrine of Tat tvam asi, 'Thou art that,' which asserts that everything you
think you are and everything you think you perceive are undivided. To
realize fully this lack of division is to become enlightened." ZAMM p.143

Scott:
Yes. I quoted FMW to show a similarity between him and the MOQ. There is a 
difference too, however, namely, as far as the MOQ goes, mystical experience 
is one of "pure DQ", but for FMW "pure DQ" is a mystical state, but there is 
a higher one also, one that is "indifferent" to DQ and SQ, that DQ is also 
relative.

And as I've said before, I consider the "Thou art that" formula to be 
one-sided, a violation of the tetralemma.

Scott said:
...Here I am only pointing out that DQ is defined. Through statements such
as these, or through a book called LILA, DQ gets defined, much as axioms
about sets define what a set is in mathematics, even though there is no
actual definition of a set in the form "A set is defined as such-and-such".
The problem is not one of definition, rather...

dmb says:
DQ is defined and gets defined in LILA, "even though there is no actual
definition" and "the problem is not one of definition" anyway? Wow. How DO
you do it? WHY do you do it? I'd guess that your reason for living is to
misread everything that passes before your eyes and then spread the
confusion? Its a bit astonishing, really. OK, if I follow your sweet word
magic and golden logic, Pirsig defines DQ as beyond definition, which gives
it a definition, which means it is no longer beyond definition and so we
should re-define DQ as definable - but rare. Is that the idea? I guess
there's a certain kind of foolish consistancy there, at least. But
seriously, I think you're missing the point. Give me a minute to calm
down...

Scott:
No that is not the idea. I am saying that we can learn to use a word or 
phrase without an explicit definition, that there are implicit definitions 
as well. After writing LILA we are able to use the phrase DQ. And in 
particular I wasn't referring to that "defined by being undefinable" 
business (strawman, anyone?). I was referring to Ant's statement: "As 
Dynamic Quality is the continuum that enables things to exist, it is beyond 
definition". I don't see why "the continuum that enables things to exist" 
doesn't serve as a definition, likewise FMW's "Consciousness of absence of 
objects is Nirvana". See below.

DMB said:
Aren't you basically trying to say what Pirsig said, that we can describe
DQ, but not define it. We can say what it is NOT, even if we can't say
exactly what it is?

Scott:
Well, I just looked up 'define' and 'describe' in my dictionary (New World 
Dictionary), and based on which definitions one chooses, we could call what 
Pirsig has done a description *or* a definition. One definition of 'define' 
is to 'describe precisely'. According to this definition, I would say that 
DQ is not defined, but then neither is SQ or 'experience' or 'contrarian', 
etc. In fact, other than in technical vocabularies, there isn't much of 
anything that can be 'described precisely'. Another definition of 'define' 
is "to give the distinguishing characteristics of". This is what I say Ant's 
and FMW's statements do. So in this sense, these are definitions. Meanwhile, 
for 'describe' there is "to talk or write about", so with this definition, 
DQ is described in the MOQ. But another definition is "to picture in words", 
and by this definition, DQ is not describable.

DMB continued:
 That we can know it from experience even if we can't pin
it down with the kind of restrictions that actual definitions would require?
See, I think you simply have to tie this in with an idea you already
favorably expressed in this very post, by way of your pal FMW. See, Nirvana
and/or DQ is described as "consciousness of absence of objects". To describe
the experience of this type of consciousness, we could just as rightly say
it is to "realize fully this lack of division". Or, to use Northrop's terms,
we could also refer to this as an "undifferentiated" experience. They are
all different ways to say the same thing, the point being that this
experience is distinctly different than our normal mode of consciousness,
which is full of distinctions form wall to wall and from floor to ceiling.
And so it is only consistant to point out that this experience is beyond
definition for the simple reason that definitions are all about distinctions
and divisions and differentiations.

Scott:
See above. "Lack of division" can be seen as a description or as a 
definition, depending on which definition one chooses. I gave the four 
sentences from FMW to show that he was *distinguishing* DQ/Nirvana from 
SQ/Universe, and to relate both of them to something "higher", which Pirsig 
doesn't do explicitly (remember, Pirsig says that DQ in LILA serves as 
Quality did in ZMM).

DMB continued:
 Its only consistant with the distinction
between the universe of objects and Nirvana, as you described it. This is
the point of describing DQ as beyond definitions. I think its fairly obvious
that we can connect these concepts and see how they all fit together and I'm
just stunned that you're reading this stuff as if Pirsig, Plotinus, FMW and
others were in enemy camps when it just ain't so. This is why I get so
bugged. Based on your reading list, your posts should be a tremendous help
to the MOQ, but NOOOoooooOOOOOooooOOOOooo.....

What's the deal with that?

Scott:
I don't think I ever considered them enemies. Obviously, they are all on the 
side of mysticism. I have only pointed out that the way Plotinus and FMW 
have treated human intellect -- in itself, in its being related to Dynamic 
Intellect, and in its role in mystical development -- is very different from 
the way Pirsig treats it, and that in this matter, I am on FMW's side.

- Scott