[MD] Metaphysical issues: DQ

[Joseph Maurer]

> [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?
>

[Joe]
Every ugly dictator in history has used that argument for his ugly purpose
to kill.



On 10/13/08 12:26 AM, "Christoffer Ivarsson"
<IvarssonChristoffer at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> [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
>  
> 
> 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/