[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hi Mark  -- 


Okay.  Here's Pt. II of my comments on  your twin communications of 8/25.
(It deals with your first post which is  mostly in Pirsigian.)

> 'DQ and sq are experienced differently, sq is  the known and
> dead in a creative sense while DQ is always new.'

I  take it that "dead" refers to our experience of something that is  already
created or established -- even something like a symphony or opera  that
progresses in time but whose final destination in known.  Would you  say that
this applies also to evolution whose ultimate outcome is  unknown?  (Or is
that DQ?)
 
Mark: Hello Ham.
Yes.

Ham: Later, in the music analogy, you describe hearing an  exceptional 
performance
of a known work as "experiencing DQ."  Since the  piece being played is
familiar to me, it must be the performer's "fresh"  interpretation, or my
response to it, rather than the composition, that  accounts for my
experiencing DQ.  It that correct?
 
Mark: I deliberately chose the example of a known piece.
I could have gone full-out DQ and used a new piece, but new pieces can be  
rubbish just as well as new interpretations of old pieces.
So, to keep it focused i went for the new interpretation of an old piece  
example.
OK...
I see you are setting up the usual Substances: There is a player and a  
listener.
But the MoQ replaces these Substances with patterns of sq.
The player disrupted her sq repertoire in response to DQ when she  created 
her new interpretation.
Your patterns engage in an aesthetic relationship with her creation and, if  
it's good, you harmonise with it.
 
Ham: This would mean that my first hearing of
a piece is always a DQ  experience, but that my second hearing (unless it is
an extraordinary  performance) would always be sq. because it is "dead in a
creative  sense".
 
Mark: Yes, your first hearing is always Dynamic.
The second hearing, unless extraordinary, would be more static.
 
Ham: Now I know that Pirsig says Quality does not reside in the subject or  
the
object, but cites the source as a "Value event".  "...The very  existence of
subject and object themselves is deduced from the Value  event.  The Value
event is the cause of the subjects and  objects...".  If the subject and
object are "deduced"(?) from the event,  Value must precede existence.  Is
that the logic behind his insistence  that value or DQ is the primary
reality?
 
Mark: This view is expounded in ZMM and you are spot on.
'I don’t know how much thought passed before he arrived at this, but  
eventually he saw that Quality couldn't be independently related with either the  
subject or the object but could be found only in the relationship of the two  
with each other. It is the point at which subject and object meet.
That  sounded warm.
Quality is not a thing. It is an event.
Warmer.
It is the  event at which the subject becomes aware of the object.
And because without  objects there can be no subject...because the objects 
create the subjects  awareness of himself...Quality is the event at which 
awareness of both subjects  and objects is made possible.
Hot.
Now he knew it was coming.
This  means Quality is not just the result of a collision between subject and 
object.  The very existence of subject and object themselves is deduced from 
the Quality  event. The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and 
objects, which are  then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the Quality!' (ZMM 
ch. 20)
But we have a problem, because the MoQ is expounded in Lila and drops  
subjects and objects.

Ham: In that case, neither value nor experience would be
differentiated;  they would both be "unified" in the Oneness of Dynamic
Quality.
 
Mark:
Mark from above: 'DQ and sq are experienced differently, sq is the known  and 
dead in a creative sense while DQ is always new.
Value and experience are indeed the same; experience is of value.
Experience of DQ is unified while experience of sq sets up  tensions.
 
Ham: Is that the author's ontology for a Primary Source?
 
Mark: MoQ ontology includes more than the primary source; sq emerge from  the 
primary source.
The primary source, DQ, is left alone.
 
Ham: And does
that source include the (subjective) experience and  (objective) existence
that are differentiated by the value event?
 
Mark: You are switching between 2 books here, and the second explains MoQ  
ontology.
All Human knowledge is static: sq.
The primary source is DQ and contains nothing.
Nothing can be said about DQ qua DQ.

> DQ is experienced in the  instant. sq is after the event.

Ham: If I understand you correctly, DQ  turns into sq following the 
experience.
 
Mark: This is a great question Ham.
'This aesthetic nature of the Conceptually Unknown is a point of connection  
between the sciences and the arts. What relates science to the arts is that  
science explore the Conceptually Unknown in order to develop a theory that will 
 cover measurable patterns emerging from the unknown. The arts explore the  
Conceptually Unknown in other ways to create patterns such as music, 
literature,  painting, that reveal the Dynamic Quality that produced them. This 
description,  I think, is the rational connection between science and the arts.' (SODV 
p.  18)
This quote deals with Music in its relation to science and logic.
I think a careful reading of it suggests that Music as a Human activity  
brings us closer to DQ than science and logic: '...music, literature,  
painting...' '...reveal the Dynamic Quality that produced them.'
Music is particularly Dynamic as a Human experience, as is literature and  
painting.
As such, our sq patterns of music, literature and painting may be  
exceptionally fluid and open to Dynamic influence.
 
Ham: I'm confused.  Doesn't this infer that a phenomenal performance  in
retrospect becomes ordinary?  In other words, do I remember the  experience
as DQ or sq?
 
Mark: All remembrance is of the static. Immediate experience is  Dynamic.

> In a Substance ontology your question is valid.
> I  would have to use the language of Substance ontology
> in order to address  it to your satisfaction.
> The MoQ is not a Substance based  ontology.
> The MoQ includes DQ and sq - with sq divided into 4
>  evolutionary related levels.
> Substances are re-describe in terms of  patterns of sq
> left in the wake of Dynamic Quality.
> Now to  answer your question using DQ and sq:
> As all sq patterns share the same  Dynamic source,
> the violinist and you have the same Dynamic  source.

Ham: Yet, she is playing a piece that is "dead" to her, that is,  her 
performance
is the culmination of repeatedly practising a score she knows  by heart.  How
can that still be DQ?
 
Mark: Great point.
I am not a virtuoso, but i would speculate that all virtuoso are inspired  by 
reaching for a better interpretation.
I have a feeling the DQ is accessed in the act of touch.
It's all in the touch.
Touch, for the virtuoso is in the present, and it is the knife edge between  
what IS and what becomes.
For the virtuoso, each and every touch is a Dynamic experience you and i  may 
not be able to appreciate.
Each time a virtuoso touches his/her instrument he/she is merging with  DQ.
This would explain why hours of apparently tedious exercises are less of a  
burden.
The trick is to get up on the stage, 'in the zone', unaware of the  audience, 
and 'be' with the instrument.
Oh dear. It's all becoming a bit Zen isn't it?

> It is only after  the Dynamic experience that static
> differentiations are set up.   So, If the violinist is exceptional,
> you both merge in the cutting edge  of DQ - you lose all sense
> of time and space and later you say, 'That  performance
> was sublime.'

Ham: So, what is remembered (by me) as  DQ, having been once performed, may be
only sq from the violinist's  perspective.  Or does that shift from DQ to sq
only occur on the next  night when she gives another spectacular performance?
Forgive me if I'm  taking your analogy too literally, but I'm having trouble
following it as an  "event".
 
Mark: I think you can and should push the 'event' view as far as you can  Ham.
This may lead to a very severe nominalism many MoQ theorists may have not  
realised yet?
And, as an essentialist, nominalism may be a dirty word for you?
Anyway, for the violinist, every touch is a Dynamic experience; she/he is  
very much dropping sq all the time:
There isn't a music notation yet developed which can come anywhere near  
transcribing what the composer wanted to convey anyway.
It is well known that orchestral players carry pencils with them to add  that 
which the conductor interprets and wants.
So, to tackle your question head on: Each performance is a Dynamic  
experience for everyone. More Dynamic for some than others.
 
Ham: When all is said and done, the soloist has packed up her instrument,  and
I've returned home -- are you saying that the DQ we both shared during  the
performance is forever gone?
 
Mark: No Ham. DQ is accessed by degrees. DQ is ALWAYS there. Always.
 
Ham: Is it, perchance, "stored" somewhere -- in the
realm of Quality,  Value, or some sensible Source?  Otherwise, I see no point
in either of  us having experienced the DQ event at all.
 
Mark: Life weaves itself around DQ constantly. There is no experience you  
can have which is not responding to DQ to some degree.
When you and the soloist meet in the concert hall you may fully expect to  
access DQ far more here than trotting around Walmart with your grocery  cart.
Walmart holds many Dynamic experiences, but i really do pity those who find  
this preferable to Music or Literature Ham.
And i suspect some do?

> Your perspective is founded on a  Substance based
> ontology within the Western philosophical  tradition.
> You are analysing the situation after the event.
>  Fundamental to your analysis is a Substance ontology
> of 'things' not  'events'.  The MoQ may be said to be
> more of a process ontology  where you and the violinist
> are emerged in one process rather than two  separate
> 'things' which are causally linked.
[snip]
> DQ is  experienced as the cutting edge of NOW from which
> old sq patterns are  extruded.  Understand the magnitude of
> what this is saying: You ARE  nothing but static quality patterns
> being extruded from the immediate DQ  cutting edge of
> experience, Ham.

Ham: I speak of objective  phenomena in terms of both "things" and "events", 
so I
don't see that I am  any more "traditional" than Pirsig.
 
Mark: There is an argument, (and one i include in my new essay for Horse)  
which says, 'things participate in events'. This is not the same as suggesting  
events are mistaken for 'things'.
 
Ham: My philosophy is
not "substance based" but valuistic, as is  Pirsig's.  It is true that I do
not describe substance (i.e., matter) as  "patterns of sq left in the wake of
Dynamic Quality."  I describe it as  forms of beingness objectivized by the
intellect from values perceived by the  subject.  And, while my epistemology
is different, we are both positing  a differentiated reality derived from a
non-differentiated (if not absolute)  source.
 
Mark: All Substances have their essential natures. Essence is all about a  
rational description of what substances are isn't it?
If you posit a primary essence then you also posit a primary  substance.
The MoQ replaces substance with events and essence with DQ.
It's as simple as that unless someone can put me straight?

>  Perhaps, and this is not a dig at you or anything, but
> perhaps you are  the eternal mechanic who strives to invent
> names and new relationships  between things? For you, in
> order for there to be sense, you enjoy the  aesthetic of the
> eternal mechanic; austere, clean, well proportioned,  economical.
> And yet, at bottom, what you need more than anything else  is
> that sense of  aesthetic.

Ham: Guess who's more of a  "mechanic"; the author of "The Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance" or the author  of a "Philosophy of Essence"?
 
Mark: The literal truth of this is missing the point.
 
Ham: As for "striving
to invent names and new relationships between  things", believe me, I would
only wish that there were less relationships to  define in this world!  It is
Mr. Pirsig, the cyclist and boating  enthusiast, who seems more concerned
with evolutionary processes and societal  solutions than with individuals and
their aesthetic values.
 
Mark: 'My personal feeling is that this is how any further improvement of  
the world will be done: by individuals making Quality decisions and that’s  all.'
(ZMM ch. 30)
Need i add any more Ham?

Ham: Not to toot my own horn or demean  Pirsig's literary talents, but as a 
lover
of fine music and the arts, I've  been called an epicurean.
 
Mark: Oh go on! Give your horn a toot! They can't touch you for it you  
epicurean you!
 
Ham: My philosophy
begins with the individual, explores the values that  drive him, and links
him metaphysically with the source of Reality.
 
Mark: The MoQ begins with the source of reality and concludes the source  
drives the individual.
 
Ham: Your favorite author speaks
of man anthropologically, as an  evolutionary species that draws its
intellect and cognizance from a  collective wellspring.
 
Mark: My favourite author is Charles Dickens. What has Dickens to do with  
this?
1. The scientific study of man is anthropology.
The MoQ has challenged this and found it wanting.
2. Evolution is a high quality pattern of intellectual value according to  
the MoQ. But the MoQ improves it.
3. Human culture provides many new born with a source for knowledge.
 
Ham: His loyal followers seem suspicious of the term "individualism",
 
Mark: This may very well depend on how far you wish to push the  intellectual 
analysis of what the individual is?
The Buddha - an individual, concluded that it may be most  problematic.
 
Ham: regard religion as "supernaturalism",
 
Mark: Religion has a very clear position in the MoQ ontology: Religions are  
largely social patterns of values. At the core of all religions is DQ.
 
Ham: and have no compunctions about relegating everything
traditionally  considered to be the essence of man -- his self-awareness,
intellect,  creativity, and spirituality -- to borrowed property.
 
Mark: What about women? Do they have a different essence or are they  allowed 
to join in?
If so, then you are saying, 'Essence of Humans', and Humans are a species  by 
definition aren't they Ham?
OK. The self-awareness, intellect, creativity and spirituality of Humans  are 
borrowed property are they?
Hardly: Humans are that which have self-awareness, intellect, and a sense  of 
the divine.
I think the MoQ can agree with that.

> Language is a social patterns.
> You speak US  English.
> This is a good example of your social patterns as the
>  imitation of your parents' behaviour.
> Philosophy is intellectual  patterns.
> You enjoy philosophy.
> This is a good example of your  intellectual patterns
> manipulating the patterns you encountered in your  culture.
> So, in the social and intellectual sense you are  influenced
> by recent patterns.

Ham: Yes, we are all influenced by  familial precepts, societal trends, and 
the
intellectual achievements of our  forbearers.  At the same time, we are all
unique human beings, capable  of realizing the values of our variegated
world, and free to make the choices  that will determine its future.  A few
of us living now will use these  assets to discover cures for cancer and
diabetes, develop strategies for  dealing with the tribal mentality of
religious extremists, fly to the moons  of Jupiter, and even compose
exquisite works of music.  The rest will  say: "That's great!  Make sure I
get MY share of that stuff.  I'd  be where you are if I weren't socially
disadvantaged."
 
Mark: If it means i remain socially disadvantaged then please feel free to  
leave for the Moons of Jupiter immediately Ham and i shall be happy to be left  
behind.
Re: Social disadvantage. Mozart experienced social disadvantage all his  
life. Anyone with minimal access to the net can join in.
Re: Cure. Scientists advance as a community. Anyone can join in.
Re: Religious extremists. Joining in restricted.
Can you see a pattern emerging here Ham?
 
Ham: That may be too Randian for you, but I thought it nicely tied in all  the
topics we've covered above.  And, since I can't think of anything  more to
say at the moment, I'll make it my closing statement.
 
Mark: I'm not allowed to join in anymore.
You may be an epicurean but it would seem you are a coward  also Sir.

Ham: Thanks for a stimulating discussion, Mark.  You've lost me on  the DQ/sq
split, but I hope I've addressed the most important issues as I  understand
them.

Essentially yours,
Ham
 
Mark:
Love,
Mark