[MD] Metaphysical issues: DQ

[ml]

Chris,

Speaking of Static and Dynamic.

Dynamic is when the spark is between the doorknob and the finger.

Static is when it no longer is.

Cognition is when you say "Ow, damn static."

thanks--mel


----- Original Message -----
From: "Christoffer Ivarsson" <IvarssonChristoffer at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 2:14 PM
Subject: [MD] Metaphysical issues: DQ


>
> 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
>
> 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/