[MD] Metaphysical issues: DQ

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

[Chris]
>> 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.

[Joseph Maurer]
> Yes, we can mystically experience the indefinable.  God is indefinable.

[Chris]
Should be. I am a zennie after all, I should agree on this. still, I believe 
that DQ becomes static as soon as you experience it. Luckily each moment is 
new.

[Chris]
>> - you took something that before was DQ and incorporated it into
>> our SQ understanding. Good."

[Joseph Maurer]
> That seems a bit contrived.

[Chris]
Maybe, but that word doesn't tell me anything. What's wrong with it?



> 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