[MD] Dewey's Zen

[Ant McWatt]

David Harding stated March 30th:

>> Where I disagree is in dmb's qualification where we say there is Dynamic Quality and static quality in everything and 
that all things have varying degrees of DQ and sq. We cannot say that some thing has largely or 'more' Dynamic Quality 
in it.  That makes no sense to me.  

Ant McWatt replied March 31st:

> Ant: It makes sense to me.  For instance, take jazz music; possibly the greatest pleasure in jazz is hearing a new Dynamic
riff on a familiar theme.   It would not make sense to me to be at a jazz festival and hear band after band and say the
"levels" of Dynamic Quality have remained at the same level for each band.  Some musicians will be in a
certain groove that night; some bands will be gelling; some won't.  Some new riffs will "work"; some won't. 



David Harding responded March 31st:

Yes. I don't disagree with this. This is in line where I say that it's fine to say some
thing has been affected more by DQ than something else.  But DQ is not 'in' that thing. 

Ant McWatt comments:

David,

Yes, I think you’re right on reminding us that Dynamic Quality is not in things.  For things tend to be static patterns of some
sort and, of course, they’re created by DQ.  Quality has Lila, Lila doesn’t have quality…

Possibly, the use of the term “everything” has confused matters in this thread as it can mean all that exists (which is how 
I’ve been using the word) rather than just every static thing (which is how I think you’ve been using the word).  For the 
sake of clarity , I think the term “everything” is best avoided here!

Either way, if you read what DMB stated in his Dewey’s Zen post of March 28th (where
he gives the example of the artful motorcycle mechanic) he’s clearly talking about
the “ongoing flux of experience” rather than (static) things:

“One of the false impressions I've seen floating around way too much is that 
experience has to be just one or the other, has to be either Dynamic or static. 
I think instead that DQ and sq cooperate in every moment, like they are
"married" to each. Static patterns are derived from and lead back to
DQ or, as it's expressed above, static thinking couldn't even occur without DQ
as it's felt and lived and that ongoing flux of experience is what the static
patterns are about. You gotta have both, simultaneously, not one then the other
or one to the exclusion of the other.”

 
------CUT------

David Harding continued:

The first division of the MOQ brings us clarity.  With this first division we can say that Ultimately Dynamic Quality is
the source of all things and we can define it infinitely *but* all definitions of it are actually static quality.  So
what RMP did.  His very first division of the MOQ was to say (paraphrased):

"Leave DQ alone.  Let's not define that thing over there. I'm going to designate it an intellectual symbol and then 
leave it alone. Leaving this undefined is the right thing to do.  It gives the MOQ its strength to be eventually 
replaced by some undefined better thing in the future. Now I'm going to spend most of the book talking 
about static quality.  We can talk about this until the cows come home but let's leave Dynamic Quality alone."  

He wanted to define DQ as little as possible.  Everyone knows what DQ is when they experience it. The more 
we strangle it with static definitions the more it isn't Dynamic Quality.  This is why the majority of LILA is spent
talking about not Dynamic Quality but static quality.

Ant McWatt comments:

David, I’m glad that you’re keeping in mind the essential indefinability of Dynamic Quality; that trying to capture 
it intellectually leads you away from it; not towards it.  However, another reason LILA concentrates on the 
static quality patterns is that Pirsig thought (probably quite rightly) that enough had been said about DQ 
in his first book.

Best wishes,

Ant




.