[MD] Metaphysical issues: DQ

[Krimel]

Chris, dmb, Marsha, Joe et al.
Like dmb I am in drive by mode. This is about as close as the two of us are
likely to get. I will address Chris's comments first as they are the most
easily dismissed. First, Pirsig picks the word dynamic for one aspect of
Quality. It is his choice of terms and while I do have disagreements with
some of his choices of terms, it seem unlikely that he would pick a term
that means the exact opposite of what he means. Now listening to dmb and Bo
this is not as far fetched as it sounds but I don't think it makes sense.

Chris attempts to bolsters his misconceptions by appealing to Ant. Ant is
certainly free to correct Chris as he sees fit but the arguments Chris
presents fall on their own weight.

[Chris]
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.

[Krimel]
Not quite so fast. There is nothing in any of this that mean DQ is
"constant". This just restates the DQ fallacy that Quality and DQ are one
and the same thing. Quality is left undefined in the MoQ. DQ and SQ are
properties by which we recognize Quality. It is true that Pirsig has added
fuel to the misconception of DQ as Quality but I don't think this is to be
taken seriously. 

Quality in ZMM is identified as "The Tao". The Tao is undefined but not for
some obscure mystical hocus pocus reason. It is undefined as the future is
undefined. It is not that it can not be spoken of. Lao Tzu speaks of it. It
is simply undefined in the sense that the future is undefined. There is an
element of uncertainty in all of our plans and schemes and dreams. This
undefined element can not be removed. Gödel in math and Heisenberg in
physics demonstrate that there are logical, measurable limits on what it is
possible to know without ambiguity. Lao Tzu recognized this 2500 years ago.
Heraclitus saw it as well. 

[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.

[Krimel]
First of all, the example of the DQ tune that Pirsig gives is a classic
example of what it known as the distinction between top down and bottom up
processing. In bottom up processing our sensory input guides our
understanding of unfamiliar stimuli. Thus when we hear a new song for the
first time we focus on the direct sensory input. When we hear the song for
the umpteenth time we are using top down processing that is, all of our
previous hearings and experiences while listening shape our perception and
understanding of the song. 

But no where and no one would be correct in saying that any two people ever
have the same experience of anything. James would argue that no single
person ever has the same experience of anything twice.

[Chris]
So, Dynamic Quality can't be spoken of in a direct manner, or incorporated 
into any understanding - right.

[Krimel]
Wrong! It is Quality that can not be spoken of but even then it is a matter
of probability. Quality can not be spoken of without probability of error.
But the probability of error can be estimated and specified. 

[Chris]
Well, it can't be incorporated into any understanding because as soon as
that happens it's static and it's not true anymore.

[Krimel]
Wrong again. Just because something happened the past does not render it
static. The past is just as fluid and dynamic as the future. 

[Chris]
The Question we need to focus on here is "what should we say about DQ in 
order to make the MOQ work best?"

[Krimel]
Our goal here is to cultivate understanding. Propping up this or that bit of
nonsense for its own sake should not be on anyone's agenda.

[Bo]
I agree with DMB regarding Stephen Hawking embodying (!) the disembodied
"brain in a vat" which is the essence of science, which is the essence of
SOM. But no longer is "scientific objectivity one of the central problems
that the MOQ addresses".

[Krimel]
Pirsig in ZMM which is supposed to be your favorite, spends most of the book
arguing that those of the romantic persuasion are misguided in their failure
to appreciate the classical esthetic. It is not the classicist's problem. It
is the romantics who have the problem. All three of you guys malign Hawking.
Chris misunderstands that a man with advanced ALS is not "discovering"
anything in a laboratory. dmb, in true romantic style appoints himself judge
of Hawking's personal sense of esthetics, saying, "...a disembodied mind
pondering a mathematical universe that is indifferent to humanity." This is
simply outrageous. Hawking has made extraordinary and beautiful
contributions to the field of mathematical physics and to human
understanding of our place in the cosmos. Hearing dmb judge the beauty of
this, is like listening to one skilled only at finger painting criticize
Dali. Bo of course seeks to reduce the man to a symbol. 

[Bo]
Krimel has never acknowledged the MOQ so it's a bit weird that he has
opinions on any of its concepts, but it's a bit fun to see him and Ham
delivering their perfunctory Q-like phrases to be able to stay 
around this discussion.

[Krimel]
This is amusing coming from one who nearly every thoughtful participant in
this forum past and present has labeled WRONG. You talk nonsense about
levels feuding and holding meetings. You butcher any sensible reading of
history and theology and claim to be the all seeing eye of the MoQ. What a
joke. I have lost count of the number of such errors I have attempted to
correct for you and lost interest in making more of them.

[dmb]
Actually, Hawking is a good picture of what's wrong with science. He's like
a mythical figure, a disembodied mind pondering a mathematical universe that
is indifferent to humanity.

[Krimel]
Just to review... this is of course not Hawking's view at all. Hawking
understands his view of the universe from the highest level of
consciousness. That is the reasoned and mathematical view. He understands
just as well the aesthetics of his view. You presume to criticize what you
don't understand.

Just to clarify, Hawking's goal in his research: he says, "If we do discover
a complete theory, it should be in time understandable in broad principle by
everyone. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary
people be able to take part in the discussion of why we and the universe
exist." 

Sounds like Poincare to me. Dave claims to be an expert on all things
scientific but frankly I don't see how anyone who has read Hawking can come
to his conclusion. I don't see how anyone can dismiss someone like Hawking,
a man who has overcome extraordinary hardships in his life and yet remains
at the top of his field. I just don't think he deserves to be trivialized
the way you gentlemen are so smug about.

[dmb]
There is no place for anything like DQ in such a scientific world view. What
you describe here as new experience or new inventions sounds a lot more like
an undiscovered fact. Such a scientific worldview is an interpretation of
the facts, a particular way to construe the data. As I understand it, the
data themselves are considered valid because they are derived from
experience but there is more than one way to understand them. As you
probably know, the idea of scientific objectivity is one of the central
problems that the MOQ addresses.

[Krimel]
This just heaps injury on top of insult but at its core it represents a
fundamental misunderstanding of the MoQ. Pirsig claims the point of the MoQ
is to reconcile the romantic and the classic, art and science.
Reconciliation is not achieved by destroying or dismissing one half of the
disputants. Pirsig points out some of the problems with science. But as I
have said time and again he is arguing points made and resolved long before
he gets into the act. Kuhn, Polanyi and others pointed out long ago that
science is a human enterprise and that intuition, joy and even dreams
contribute heavily to the process of scientific discovery. Pirsig comes late
to the battle and argues long after the victory has been won. But Pirsig
also says that if properly understood science and the MoQ are not in
conflict. I would add that if the MoQ were properly understood it is not
only in harmony with science but both knit together to produce a marvelous
synergy. Why those of you in Chris's "MOQ "New Age" gibberish" crowd think
that humanity is served by dismissing its greatest achievements is forever a
mystery to me. Science supports the MoQ. Why is this a bad thing?

[dmb] 
I think its important to see that DQ can't be incorporated into a static
understanding, no matter when or where you are. And even more importantly
than that, the MOQ is a form of philosophical mysticism and DQ is the
mystical reality.

[Krimel]
The whole idea of static thinking must be some kind of oxymoron. Thinking is
always dynamic. We sense the present and incorporate it into our experiences
of the past. This is always subject to change or it should be and when it
isn't, when it becomes calcified, it degenerates into mere dogma. Dogma is
the pure antithesis of science. In science all statements are dynamic and
subject to change, revision and falsification.

Again, Dave wants to put a particular kind of experience on a pedestal as
though mystical experiences are some how different in kind than other kinds
of experiences. This is just wishful thinking but it does reveal the heart
of the romantic threatened by thoughtful study.

[dmb quotes Pirsig]
"The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had call
'Quality' in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality
doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead of
definition. Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to
intellectual abstractions." (Lila, page 64)

[Krimel]
This is an easily misunderstood passage and I suspect even Pirsig is
confused about its significance. The process and order of human sensation
perception and cognition are not perfectly understood but they are certainly
well understood enough to specify what Pirsig is referring to when he speaks
of the "pre-intellectual." It is not some far out cool nifty new age crap,
it is emotion, pure an simple. Emotions are autonomic responses processed
through the mammalian centers in the mid-brain. William James made early
contribution to our understanding of emotion but the subject remained
dormant for many years in part because of the attitudes in science that
Pirsig criticizes. But as I said that battle is over and the emotions are
ripe for study and have been for the past 20 years. The chief Quality of
emotion that is of concern here is the property of valance. Emotions are
positive or negative or somewhere in between. They occur instantly and
without conscious intellectual processing. To the extent that they are
conscious they are at a fairly low level of consciousness. They function, as
James would have it, to remove us from danger and attract us toward that
which sustains life.

This is our "sense" of Quality. It is this emotional valance. Claiming that
it is mystical or other worldly just muddies the issue. Dogs do it, cats do
it, even barnyard rats do it. It is a biological function not a spiritual
pathway. Consciousness, awareness, the power to think rationally, emerge
through to process of evolution by giving us the power to over write these
pre-intellectual emotional responses.

[dmb]
That's why guys like Hawking seem so precise and exact when they describe
the universe in mathematical equations; because the richness of all the
details are left on the editing room floor.

[Krimel]
This just highlights the problem with Dave's fingerpaint mentality. You wish
to damn that which you don't understand. All those pictures in Pirsig's
gallery and you are the self appoint arbiter of Quality? 

[dmb]
To physicists and chemists, water is nothing but H2O but such assertions
forget to mention that water is experienced as wet, cool, slippery,
thirst-quenching, crop-saving, cleansing, flowing, etc.. The felt quality of
experience simply doesn't enter into descriptions based on the periodic
table of elements.

[Krimel]
You know Dave all this talk about how in touch you are with scientific
theory and how you understand all this stuff intimate falls a bit flat when
you say stupid things like this. Science offers up unambiguous definitions
for all of those properties of water. I am pretty sure the hot tub was not
invented by some navel gazing romantic.

[dmb]
It is in this sense, I think, that science ignores value. And it is in this
sense that Quality is constantly known in all experience. It is not
consistent, it is always new and changing, flowing and fluxing but it is
always at the front edge of every experience.

[Krimel]
I take it from this that we are at least in agreement that Chris is dead
wrong about DQ and should be formally asked to stop saying it is "constant".

[dmb quoting Pirsig]
"Reality, which is value, is understood by every infant. It is a universal
starting place of experience that everyone is confronted with all the time.
Within a MOQ, science is a set of static intellectual patterns describing
this reality, but the patterns are NOT the reality they describe." (Lila,
page 103)

[Krimel]
"When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as
a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things."
- The Apostle Paul

This romantic notion that somehow infants understand things better than
adults is just silly. I thought you understood the pre/trans fallacy... 

The last part is just Pirsig arguing with the moon.

[dmb]
Just driving by...

[Krimel]
Just returning fire...