[MD] Choices in Quality

[118]

The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.
-John Milton Paradise Lost Book1 line 254

The quote above is from the Devil, and he is speaking of his own mind
as it permeates.  This is also taken up in His Argument in Book 4.  I
choose the quote to start this post, to suggest the singularity of the
mind as something which exists separate from the brain, but must
coexist with the brain in order to exist.

Pirsig spends a little bit of time with the determinism/free will
debate, however elaboration is possible in order to better diagram
what MoQ can say about this and DQ/SQ.  I will drop the “Free” part of
“Free Will” going forward and simply refer to it as “Will” which I
think is less redundant.  As MoQ distinguishes SQ from DQ, so can we
distinguish Will from Determinism.  The similarity between Will and DQ
is not a stretch, although such similarity is provided only for the
purposes of illustration.  Neither DQ nor Will can be defined except
through omission.  That is, DQ is not sq, and Will is not determined.
So while I claim a similarity, let us not take it too literaly since
the boundaries for both do not exist, and therefore the similarity is
only used as analogy, for the purposes of explanation.

In past posts I have suggested that DQ and free will can be seen as
the same thing.  This can be best understood by presenting the
alternative concept.  The concept of SQ is provided so as to guide one
to what is meant by Pirsig with his use of “DQ”.  I am using the same
technique to guide one as to what I mean by Will.  Determinism cannot
bind Will anymore than SQ can bind DQ.  Arguments using static
concepts to suggest that Will does not exist, are about as useful as
an argument within SQ suggesting that DQ does not exist.  For indeed,
DQ does not exist within the realm of SQ, just like Will does not
exist within the realm of determinism.  They are mutually exclusive as
concepts.  The static finger of SQ is made up of words.  All SQ can
present, is that DQ exists, and that there are perhaps non-static
techniques for revealing it.  Only reading a book about Zen will never
get one to Zen.

The relationship between determinism and static quality can be
accepted within the confines of this presentation without much need
for argument.  Determinism marches on in a “changing” fashion as do
static qualities.  Both Determinism and Static Quality are rigid in
their temporary appearance, and can be subjected to cause-effect
paradigms, as well as seen objectively.

There are suggested breaks in existence where Will comes into being.
Such breaks both follow, and, result in a period of determinism,
whether that is a second or a galactic eon.  In the same way, DQ can
present itself through the cracks of SQ.  Although both DQ and Will
can be said "to determine", this determination comes from a place
outside of the concept of determination.  The idea of determination
only arises once DQ or Will have made their “presence known” and have
left the arena.

For further illustration, I can say that in the human mind this DQ or
Will presence happens at very short time intervals (milliseconds for
example).  In fact the human experience is a constant dynamic
interplay between DQ and sq, or, Free Will and Determinism.  In fact
this relationship cannot be said to be linear like the Morse Code
coming with a telegraph (sound interspersed with silence), but is more
convoluted than that where both DQ and sq appear at the same time, and
human existence is indeed a chimera of DQ and SQ.

AS we are taught by MoQ to make a distinction between DQ and SQ (or
Will and Determinism) we can ask what the relationship between the two
is.  That is what is it about DQ which is revealed in SQ?  The Will v
Determinism is a much easier handle with which to address this.  So
the question there is:  How does Will relate to Determinism?

In life, it is said that we have choices.  The determinist would say
that such choices are foregone conclusions due to previous causes
(like some would claim Buddha said which of course he could not). The
determinist would also claim (by association) that DQ does not exist.
But let us say that we do have real choices, and that DQ does exist as
a concept which can provide meaning.  In hindsight, we can speculate
what would have happened if the choice made was different.  In MoQ
parlance the same question would be: What would have happened if DQ
was different?  This allows us to place the apparition of Will in a
certain time and place.  In the same way we can speculate as to DQ
being present at a certain time and place.  Let us not confuse this
analogy with the claim that DQ IS some thing, because neither DQ or
Will are some thing.

So, what is a choice?  What are the static attributes that may guide
one to understanding it and DQ?  In a room, we know there is no choice
of exit if there is only one door.  We also know that there is no
choice of exit if there are no walls (assume a “room” that looks like
an umbrella).  So, choice must be present within certain parameters,
(such as more than one door which implies there being walls), for free
will to exercise itself.  For DQ to “exercise itself”, it must also
exist within certain parameters.  One cannot follow DQ alone, just
like one cannot exert Will “alone”.  DQ must have something to act on,
just like Will must have something to act on.  Just as Will acts to
make a choice, DQ acts to make SQ.  SQ can be said to be the many
choices of DQ.  Since I equate Will to DQ, I can say that Will acts to
make much of the constructs around us.

The question could be what comes first, the Will, or the need for a
choice?  This is of course a nonsensical question since both must
arise together.  That is, Will does not come into the picture until a
choice is needed.  The same can be said for DQ.  That is, there is no
DQ without SQ.  Or, there is no window without a frame.  In the past I
have made the statement that Will is like the opening of a window.
That window is surrounded by static quality but that is not what Will
is.  DQ is surrounded by SQ to give it meaning, but that is not what
DQ is.

Therefore, this simple analogy where DQ is equated with Will can serve
to guide one as to the distinction between DQ and SQ, how they must
both appear together, and how they interact.

Any suggestions for improvement of this analogy are more than welcome
from the good folk.

Regards,
Mark