[MD] Chance, Dynamic Quality and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Chris, Platt, Marsha and All --


[Chris]:
> Dynamic Quality does not mean randomness or chaos.
> Dynamic Quality is not some external force that comes
> in and effects the patterns like some God.  Rather Dynamic
> Quality is everywhere and in every "thing".  It is the
> motivational force that keeps everything running, since
> everything strives for higher Quality, the higher Quality
> perceived as Dynamic Quality and then transformed into
> static Quality.

[Platt]:
> Yes, DQ is a "motivational force" moving things toward
> betterness (evolution).

 [Chris]
> It is Good to see that we agree on this =) so you share the
> view that DQ is not some external force that swoops in
> and changes things rather it is ever present, that it is Quality
> that everything tries to evolve towards experiencing better?
>
> Yes. DQ is ever present, always ready to lead the way towards
> better (more versatile, more free) experiences. It acts as lure.
> But it can be ignored and/or overcome by the static forces of
> biology, social conformity, and intellectual limitations.
>
> I am also glad we have found an area of agreement.

I accidentally ran across an essay on Quality by John Beasley while looking 
for something else under Metaphysics.  The essay is dated 6/20/01 in the 
Archives, so it predates my participation in the MD.  I don't know Beasley's 
standing with the MoQers, but this is an excellent piece of journalism that 
expresses many of my own concerns about Quality as metaphysical reality.

Beasley cites the end of Lila where Pirsig asserts that "Good is a noun", 
but then concludes  "...the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or an adjective or 
eanything else definable, but if you had to reduce the whole Metaphysics of 
Quality to a single sentence, that would be it".

"Good is introduced as a noun in a story about an Indian who replies to the 
question 'What kind of dog is that?' with the response 'That's a good dog'. 
(Lila Ch 32)   Pirsig remembered that the Indians also described his friend 
Dusenberry as a 'good man'.  He elaborates, 'The Indians didn't see man as 
an object to whom the adjective 'good' may or may not be applied. When the 
Indians used it they meant that good is the whole center of experience and 
that Dusenberry, in his nature, was an embodiment or incarnation of this 
center of life."

Later Beasley writes:
"In short, he is asserting that the most valuable learning is intellectual. 
And yet he knows this is just what the mystics reject.  To the mystic, 
'metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics is names about reality.'  'Thought 
is not a path to reality.' (Lila Ch 5)   'The fundamental nature of reality 
is outside language ... language splits things up into parts while the true 
nature if reality is undivided." (Ch 5)  Pirsig, however, lacks a language 
adequate to discuss 'the true nature of reality', and perhaps more 
importantly, it seems that despite his involvement in Zen, his studies in 
India, and his experience with peyote, he has failed to find an adequate 
experiential path to learning about reality as the mystic views it."

"The whole idea of a unified quality comes unstuck the moment we start to 
look at quality from the perspective of the cell, or the organism, or the 
person, rather than as some metaphysical 'noun'.  As I have said before, 
quality enters the physical universe with the coming of life.  To talk of 
pre-existing moral codes establishing the superiority of biological life 
over inanimate nature is a form of theologising.  Quality only makes sense 
as seen from the perspective of the organism.  Life brings value.  It is 
meaningless to assert value without life.  Human life brings a magnificent 
unfolding of quality, which emerges in intellect, as Pirsig correctly 
asserts, but also in art and ethics and creativity, and none of these flower 
without education, as we know from study of the wolf-boy, the individual 
raised alone."
        http://www.moq.org/forum/JohnBeasley/johnbeasley4.html

I'd be interested in hearing your comments about the Beasley essay.  Perhaps 
Platt or Bo can recall  his contributions to this forum or may know his 
current whereabouts.  (I would guess from the spelling that he's a Brit.)

Thanks folks,
Ham