[MD] Metaphysical issues: DQ

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

Everybody.  I'll post this agin because I really want your input on this.

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