[MD] The first division of the MOQ. - dynamic or Dynamic Quality?

[Ham Priday]

Ian, Mark, and David --

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:11 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> 
wrote:

> dynamic or Dynamic Quality?
>
> What's the difference?
>
> Are they the same thing?
>
> If they are, then aren't we all defining the undefinable when we say 
> something,
> such as Ian does with music below, is dynamic?
>
> If the MOQ really is a way to live ones life, shouldn't we be able to say 
> then,
> what is and is not Dynamic Quality?  If the MOQ really is good then 
> shouldn't
> we be able to categorise something in either of the two boxes of the first
> division of the MOQ?  I'm seeing a lot of people getting stuck on this 
> point
> and I think the blame can be laid on the use of this term 'dynamic' which
> avoids the issue entirely.
>
> 'Dynamic' muddies things where the first division of the MOQ brings 
> clarity.

Not to criticize the MoQ as a concept but in the interest of clarity, I 
think David has a valid point.  The terms "static" and "dynamic" are nothing 
more than labels intended to distinguish two modes of reality--empirical 
(experiential) and metaphysical (ultimate).

As I look again at Pirsig's block diagram (SODV paper), I can almost 
envision the author's thought process.  Having already decided to call 
metaphysical reality "Dynamic Quality", he now had to show how the 
experienced patterns related to the dynamic flow.  For this he needed an 
antonym for "dynamic", such as "stationary" or "fixed".  Whether it was its 
association with electromotive force or for some other reason, he chose 
"static".  In the paragraph immediately preceding the diagram he states: 
"Dynamic Quality is a stream of quality events going on and on forever, 
always at the cutting edge of the present.  But in the wake of this cutting 
edge are static patterns of value. These are memories, customs, and patterns 
of nature."

The terms stuck because they were effective in identifying the divisions of 
Quality as diagrammed by the author.  Unfortunately, they proved less 
effective--even confusing--when applied to everyday examples of static 
patterns, such as works of art or music, both of which.have dynamic aspects. 
One might just as logically call experienced events "dynamic" and the 
Quality from which they are derived "static".  But I suspect the label 
Dynamic Quality had more romantic appeal to Pirsig's novelist instincts.

As an essentialist, of course, I see the terminology as a fundamental 
misconception of metaphysical reality.  The problem I have with "Dynamic 
Quality" is that it is "unfinished" -- that it continues indefinitely along 
some cosmic path to "betterness" which we associate with evolution.  And it 
straps Quality to the space/time dimensions of a universe in process.  I 
think this is what Mark was getting at when he suggested that Evolution 
shouldn't be used to connote Quality.

Beginnings and endings are a phenomenon of the "cause-and-effect" world 
where meaning is found in the existential (alpha to omega) progression 
between these two boundaries.  But there is no metaphysical reason to assume 
that the modus operandi of the ultimate source is process in time.  The 
spiritual cultures that predated philosophy must have understood this, as 
religious people have traditionally characterized their God as "eternal" and 
"unchanging'.

But if you are persuaded that ultimate Quality streams to betterness in its 
creation of lingering patterns, who am I to fault this belief?  Inasmuch as 
the principles of metaphysics are incapable of empirical verification, one 
analogy will be regarded as good as another.

Essentially speaking,
Ham


> So that said. Ian, is art Dynamic Quality or static quality?
>
> On 31/03/2011, at 10:32 PM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>
>> Ha, David,
>>
>> Attending (participating in) a musical event does not require any
>> lingusitic or intellectual conceptualization of the experience - so
>> you get a good dose of the dynamic. (Of course there are plenty of
>> patterns involved in the music and the concert ritual itself, but only
>> if you analyse them - you can feel the quality without doing that.)
>>
>> The source of many previous discussions on MD. You used the extreme
>> sports "buzz" example and others as things beyond our discourse - I
>> was just reinforcing your point.
>>
>> (The only reason I picked on Hawkwind and VdGG with a ;-) was knowing
>> Horse is a fan and had experienced the latter only the day before -
>> but you could substitute whatever artistic / cultural participation
>> event that turns you on.)
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:18 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Ian,
>>>
>>> I'll bite.  What does this have to do with the first division of the 
>>> MOQ? Is a Hawkwind or Van derGraaf Generator gig static quality or 
>>> Dynamic Quality?
>>>
>>> On 30/03/2011, at 6:48 PM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi David (H)
>>>>
>>>> You summarised your impression of Mark's take thus:
>>>>
>>>> "If everything is static quality", you seem to say.. "then that
>>>> appears to be a very sad existence indeed."
>>>>
>>>> (You go on to point out lots of non-static things in real life ...)
>>>>
>>>> Mark's take hinges on the "everything" in the first clause being -
>>>> "everything that we can objectivise and discuss in language in a
>>>> metaphysics discussion forum (or anywhere else)". That would indeed be
>>>> a very sad existence, but of course life, the universe and everything
>>>> is a lot more than that, as you point out.
>>>>
>>>> As you perceive it's a source of frustration or sometimes confusion
>>>> for many on MD .... that we can only ever skirt around reality ... but
>>>> that is the reality of any discourse .... a reason why we need to meet
>>>> in the flesh at Hawkwind or Van derGraaf Generator gigs ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Metaphysics discusses meta-life and meta-reality, it's not real-life 
>>>> itself.
>>>>
>>>> Ian