[MD] Metaphysical issues: DQ

[Joseph Maurer]

On Saturday 11 October 2008 5:34 AM Chris writes to all:

> [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.
> 
 
Hi Chris and all,
 
My first education was in religion.  If you accept a creative God then
evolution is a substitute description for the origin of difference  It comes
outside of religion. A metaphysics of DQ/SQ is required to validate
evolution.  The origin of the difference between levels is indefinable.
Differential Existence is indefinable since it is still existence yet it
means something. Like one is different from two though still a number.  And
it is useless to say that existence exists. Yet it seems right to suggest
that a rock exists differently from a one-celled organism.
 
> 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.
 
Dynamic Quality is not without meaning.  It would seem, then, that DQ is
attributing a level to existence, without reference to a concept of what
exists. Focus on the difference between Inorganic and organic reproducing
from one cell etc.
 
> 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.
 
I know the indefinable and it has value.
 
> 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.
 
Yes, we can mystically experience the indefinable.  God is indefinable.
 
> 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?
 
Indefinable DQ, definable SQ or Conscious/Mechanical apprehension.
 
> 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.
 
Well! And?  
 
> 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."
 
That seems a bit contrived.
 
> 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.
 

Then don¹t keep saying it.  I don¹t think you will find a publisher.

 

Joe



On 10/11/08 5:39 AM, "Christoffer Ivarsson"
<IvarssonChristoffer at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/