[MD] Metaphysical issues: DQ

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

> [Platt]
>> > Not "institutionalizing DQ." The free market is an institution allowing
>> DQ
>> > to flourish.
>
> [Chris]
>> Nooooooooo. DQ can't "flourish". DQ is contant.

[Platt]
> Wrong again. "The power of those two sentences is that they create a 
> stable
> static situation where Dynamic Quality can flourish." (Lila, 17)
>
> Of course as we all know, Pirsig doesn't really understand his own
> philosophy. :-)

Chris:
Were supposed to do real philosophy here. I try:

> -------------------
> [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.
> ----------------------

[Chris]
> 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.