[MD] knowledge

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Marsha, Matt, all,

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:45 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> I don't see how DQ can be whatever one has in one's mind to make it.
> DQ is unknowable.

Steve:
DQ is in a way unknowable but it is also the only thing we ever know.
It is the only thing there is to know. Hmmm....

RMP:
Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can
be described is a
process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge
they are static
patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say
correctly that Dynamic
Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because
definition never exhausts it.


Steve:
I think Matt's reference to "know-how" versus "know-that" can help
solve this koan. Pragmatically, to know a thing is to be able to use
it and put it in relation to other things. This is know-how knowing
that applies to everything--even DQ. We DO have know-how knowledge of
DQ because we know how to experience quality. In fact, we don't even
know-how to ever not experience quality.

What we don't have is know-that intellectual knowledge that could ever
exhaust DQ. Know-that is knowledge about the truth of sentences. In
fact, it seems that many of the things (if not all) that we say in a
know-that way about DQ are simultaneously true and false, so there is
no know-that knowledge of DQ. There is only know-that knowledge about
our know-how knowledge. This is Pirsig's pre-post intellectual
distinction. Know-how is pre-intellectual and primary. Know-that is
always secondary because it is knowledge about our know-how rather
than knowledge of DQ.

I think at this point though, Matt would ask, "okay, so you have
created a primary/secondary distinction. What does this distinction do
for you?" Clearly some have wanted to use it as supporting
anti-intellectualism. As seconday, it is taken to be inferior. I think
that is a poor readingt of Pirsig.

Knowledge-that increases our know-how. Pirsig of ZAMM set out to show
that classical know-that has its own aesthetic and opens new
possibilities for know-how and then new know-thats in response to the
new know-hows in a feeback loop building up analogues upon analogues.
Intellect, like everything else, has static and dynamic aspects.
Intellect is not divorced from know-how.

Knowledge-that doesn't use itself and doesn't create itself.
Knowledge-that is also always know-how (though only intellectual
know-how is called knowledge-that.) Knowledge-that is the intellectual
level in that the set of all intellectual patterns of value is that
the set of all knowledge-that. Know-how is the dynamic aspect of
knowledge and can be thought of as being at work on all levels, but on
other levels, know-how doesn't obtain a static latch as
knowledge-that. Know-how is maintained through physical "laws,"  DNA,
or social habits copied from one person to the next.

In this formulation, knowledge-how is never and can never be out of
touch with reality. Since knowledge-how is just a particular static
form of know-how just like DNA or social customs are, it is also
always a part of reality. The Buddha resides just as comfortably in a
sentence as at the top of a mountain. Thinking can't take you closer
to or further from reality, but it can enhance your experience by
bringing new previously unrealized reality into being.

Best,
Steve