[MD] desires

[Andre Broersen]

John to Andre (in response to my comment 'I don't know what you mean by 
'all potential experience').

Don't feel bad. Neither do I. It's sort of an all-purpose construction I 
think, like Ham's "Essence". Something needed logically, and therefore 
construed.

Andre:
This does not surprise me John as this smacks of 
determinism...anticipating 'potential experience'. I mean, things 
haven't even happened yet, you haven't experienced yet and already you 
are bracing yourself intellectually. Yep, that is needed logically and 
all-purposively...and anticipating if you want to uphold an absolutist 
(Hegelian) reality(like Ham's Essence)and your allegiance to Bradley and 
Royce.It reminds me of what James' reaction was as described by 
Richardson in his biography of James:
'The upshot of the Hegelian revelation was, for James, 'a pessimistic 
fatalism, depth within depth of impotence and indifference, reason and 
silliness united, not in a higher synthesis, but in the fact that 
whichever you choose, it is all one'. For James, Hegel's logic was the 
reverse of what it claimed to be. 'The identification of 
contradictories, so far from being the self-developing process which 
Hegel supposes, is really a self-consuming process'. The final effect of 
Hegelian thought was, James felt, pernicious. It encouraged us 'to see 
the world good rather than to make it good'. ( William James, In the 
Maelstrom of American Modernism, R.D. Richardson, pp 215-6)

John:

Ok, not even Pandora herself could get all that back into her box once it was opened, and so we find ourselves forced with the task of dealing with the evils, one at a time

Andre:
You opened it John. James (as per above) and Pirsig are trying to show that a lot of these 'evils' you are talking about are (SOM) self created. I thought that the MOQ bypassed a lot of this type of reasoning. You deal with them in your essential way.

John:
"The Universe's Experience":  I like this term, it dennotes what I mean. I don't like your "for whom or what", that reeks of a somish predisposition with which I disagree.

Andre:
By challenging your denotation I was challenging YOUR 'somish  predisposition' which is apparent in you positing a differentiating between 'Universal' and 'personal' experience.

John:
"The immediate flux of life": That's fine.  As long as its remembered constantly that the immediate flux is dependent upon the prior flux, then ok.

Andre:
Come on John, Dq (immediate flux) is not dependent on prior flux. What do you mean by 'prior flux? Is the immediate flux of life now cast within 'time'? Of course I think I know what you mean...you mean sq, yes? Well, Dq is not dependent on sq. DQ is not dependent on anything. DQ simply is. As Phaedrus says: The reason people see Quality (DQ) differently...is because they come to it with different sets of analogues (sq)'.(ZMM, p 243)So do not confuse this with differences in DQ.

John:
But realize that "immediate" is an entirely subjective judgment and nothing else.

Andre:
By 'immediate' or 'direct' experience Pirsig means experience within which subjects and objects cease to exist... it is pure, mystical. Nothing to do with 'subjective judgment' John. I think you are talking about static experience....as in static choice, static judgment, static conceptualization?

John:
"Experience" also always implies a subject.  If there is no experiencer, then how can there be any experience at all?  Its just what the word means, really.

Andre:
The MOQ up-ends this one John: if there is no experience then how can we (abstract) an experiencer?

John:
"the continuing stimulus which life puts upon us" is a good word for "experience" but it doesn't take us beyond our own subjective outlook, does it.

Andre:
Phaedrus used this expression to satisfy his chief questioners because they seemed to him 'to see things in terms of stimulus-response behaviour theory (ZMM, p 244).

John:
"The pre-intellectual reality" - yes, but intellectualized through naming into something quite different than it once was, right?

Andre:
I am very interested to hear what 'it once was' then John.

John:
And if you are confused at my attempts at the definition of Quality.... well, all I have to say is "welcome to the fray".

Andre:
I think you are backing the wrong horse John. Why attempt to define Quality? What is your obsession? Do I still smell the rat?

John:
...Quality is that upon which we agree, while maintaining our own difference.

Andre:
Agreement on Quality, in its static abstraction is partly what the MOQ is on about John. Quality is. It's ineffable... and yes that is a static concept...and so is the word Quality itself. By even innocently naming it, it is violated. The division is DQ/sq.

Andre previously:
Ahh, is this a trend I notice? Marsha, Mark and now you, John, suggest that  'all' is ever-changing and, I presume, therefore not real. Only DQ is.

John:
Its an incontrovertible truth, Andre.

Andre:
This is a discussion about a metaphysics John, Pirsig's MOQ. We're not talking DQ nor are we DQ talking.

John:
Where has Mr. Pirsig said that anything less than Quality itself is ultimately real?

Andre:
The discussion, as you well know John, is about the conflation of DQ/sq. The argument is that there is no difference between DQ and sq. In other words DQ=sq.They are interchangeable. Well,I suppose you have read ZMM. Now start reading LILA...and concerning this particular conflation; start reading chapter 9 and continue... .

John:
sq, andre.  Not "static patterns".  Consider the vast difference of those two terms relative to DQ.  "sq" is not merely static, it's static QUALITY,

Andre:
This is silly John. What, for you, is the difference between sq and static patterns of quality?

John:
And I'd say that while you could say that static patterns do not change of themselves, they do change in relation to static forces (patterns) of known or unknown persuasion.

Andre:
What do you mean by 'known or unknown persuasion'. This is very unclear to me.Is this part of your 'all-purpose construction' you posited above? And I was not the first one to argue that static patterns do not change by themselves. It was Pirsig, who thought this whole thing up.

John:
But remember that entropy changes things too.

Andre:
I would've thought these were changes within the static patterns of quality, entropy being a static intellectualized concept to point to this process.

John:
My advice, is whatever convenient hook seems to be of the right shape and size and projection.

Andre:
Thanks John. Then that's where I'll hang my hat.