[MD] Metaphysical issues: DQ

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

Everybody.

Here is a discussion I really want us to have, because I feel that if we don't 
resolve this there is no hope for the MOQ whatsoever. I do feel that using 
DQ as some mysterious "force" that can swoop in and stir things around is 
fatal to the MOQ, and the critics who want to call the MOQ "New Age" 
gibberish will probably win out if we continue on that path.

-------------------
[Chris]
DQ is contant.

[Krimel]
If DQ IS anything, it is the opposite of constant. This is just flat out
wrong. Please provide a shred of rationale or quit saying it.
----------------------

Rationale, yes. I will.

See the point is

"Whenever someone talks about Dynamic Quality someone else can take whatever 
is said and make a static pattern out of it and then dialectically oppose 
that pattern. The best answer to the question "What is Dynamic Quality" is 
the ancient Vedic one - 'not this, not that'"  (Pirsig Quote from Anthony's 
PhD p68)
- This being a warning from Pirsig not to take the analogy of Freedom being 
the only perceived Good of DQ too far. And he also says:

"It's important to keep all 'concepts' out of Dynamic Quality. Concepts are 
always static. Once they get into Dynamic Quality they'll overrun it and try 
to present it as some kind of concept itself"
 - I feel this is the most important warning of the all.

I think this original analogy is very troublesome, as Pirsig realises later, 
and the best way of approaching DQ could perhaps be the Zen way. What I mean 
by that is that as Pirsig points out Zen is about breaking down all static 
patterns, so they do not speak of that which cannot be spoken of, because no 
one can, although that doesn't in any way diminish anything. So far so good.

Anthony goes on to explore the division between DQ and SQ, and we all know 
of the analogy with the Dynamically experienced music that is incorporated 
into our static understanding of things. Likewise it is made clear that 
Dynamic Quality is the same, always and for everyone, and it is only the 
composition of static values that is our person that makes people identify, 
or rather judge a DQ experience differently.

So, Dynamic Quality can't be spoken of in a direct manner, or incorporated 
into any understanding - right. But how then can I talk about it here? Well, 
it can't be incorporated into any understanding because as soon as that 
happens it's static and it's not true anymore. However direct experience is 
neither true or false, it's just experience, before we do anything with it 
using our SPOV understandings. It doesn't quite fit together it seems, since 
at first glance we seem to have a philosophy that incorporates something of 
which nothing can be said. Luckily this is metaphysics,  and we can make our 
own rules.

The Question we need to focus on here is "what should we say about DQ in 
order to make the MOQ work best?"
We want the MOQ to replace old SOM as a metaphysical basis for human 
activity, and thus it is of course crucial that the MOQ in no way I 
perceived as standing in contrast to scientific understanding and method. 
And it won't do that either, unless we start to talk too much about DQ. If 
we say "DQ is that part of reality that we can't put into any kind of static 
understanding" that works. Because when someone experiences something new or 
invents something new (say Stephen Hawking finds a new small thingie in some 
lab) we just say: "Oh, right - you took something that before was DQ and 
incorporated it into our SQ understanding. Good."

 Then DQ becomes that part of Quality - Quality being Reality and Ultimate 
and Everything - that is not SQ.
That works. "DQ is always new" of course, reality that we didn't know or see 
before and then experience is of course always new!

Now, Krimel got angry at me for saying that DQ is constant, but the reason I 
say that is because if we say DQ is some force or something that swoops in 
and makes stuff happen, we will be at odds with science, and we will have 
become mystics. If we however say that DQ is the part of reality that - at 
any given moment at any given place - hasn't been incorporated into SQ 
understanding - why then we aren't at odds with anything.

And since DQ is the part of reality that hasn't etc. "It" is not attributed 
anything, especially not movement. Perhaps not being constant either, but by 
that I mean that Reality is just Reality, Quality is just Quality. Waiting 
to become SQ, or not. We can't say.










So what do you think? Am I way of?

Regards
Chris