[MD] How to experience Dynamic Quality

[david buchanan]

David H said:
Are not events, processes, occurrences, water molecules things?  When I picture these things in my mind they are very much static things. If I can picture it, it's not Dynamic Quality because as you say, Dynamic Quality isn't any thing.

dmb says:
Molecules are a prime example of what we mean by things or entities. But Pirsig is rejecting the metaphysics of substance for a kind of process philosophy. These are very different visions reality. 


David H said:
I don't deny that James sees rivers and streams as the best analogy for experience. As I said earlier, the MOQ expands on James' original pragmatism and says the best way to break up Quality is between defined and undefined quality.  This truly is its strength.  Every one knows what quality is, they just disagree about how to define it.  That simple, very powerful statement is the very first division of the Metaphysics of Quality.

dmb says:
The MOQ does alter James's work but it does so by uniting pragmatism and radical empiricism into a single fabric. But the distinction between static and Dynamic was already present in James's work. In fact, Pirsig quotes James twice on that particular point. Pirsig and James both agree that "there must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing." The next sentence says, "Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used for the basic subdivision of the MOQ".


David H said:
...Why do you need the wave analogy if you have experience itself?  These things can work together and it is through the perfection of quality that they do.


dmb says:
Why do we need the wave analogy? I don't know if anyone NEEDS it. This question is, does it help us understand what James and Pirsig are saying. Like all analogies, the purpose is to help us imagine their ideas. Analogies help by explaining the new idea in terms of what we already know. In fact, our conceptual understanding of reality is one great big pile of analogies and even that description of analogies is itself an analogy. I'd challenge anyone to say anything without using an analogy.