[MD] kill all intellectual patterns

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:39 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Horse,
>
> Thank you for the questions.  I see my previous response was insufficient.
>
>
>
> Pirsig discusses Quality in terms of DQ and SQ.  Further discussion would
> involve the manner in which DQ and SQ are used to provide meaning to the
> reader in terms of Quality.  I am not sure why you think we should not
> discuss DQ since Pirsig does.  Please refer to Lila for examples.  I also
> think we should discuss SQ in terms of what it means fundamentally, not
> simply discuss a "truth" in these examples that Pirsig presents, for those
> are irrelevant and simply open the door to dialectic.  Pirsig presents
> analogies to demonstrate how Quality can be used.  This is to get us away
> from the "either/or" falacy we fall into.

Dan:
Robert Pirsig discusses Dynamic Quality by what it is not, not by what
it is. The first cut in the Metaphysics of Quality is the
Dynamic/static. Dynamic Quality is seen as the cutting edge of
experience, pre-intellectual awareness, if you will. Though we are
constantly defining it, it cannot be defined in its entirety. Static
quality is further divided into four levels. This is the whole basis
of the MOQ.

>
>
>
> In Lila, Pirsig discusses Quality using analogies.  What he does is provide
> examples of how Quality can be used to solve issues.  These issues range
> from philosophical questions concerning free will to more mundane ones
> which evaluate political systems.  The truth in what he presents is not
> important, what is important is how he uses Quality.  We can start with
> these examples by evaluating how well Quality is presented by them.  That
> is, according to our own understanding of Quality, are these examples
> appropriate for bringing about an understanding of Quality to the reader?
> But more importantly we can bring in more examples of how Quality can be
> used.  I do this in some of my posts that are not dedicated to defending
> myself.

Dan:
If we are to have any sort of productive discussion, we must find some
sort of commonality. I for one find your use of 'Quality' here
confusing. I suggest that we first form a solid foundation of
understanding with the MOQ before attempting to expand upon it. To
that result, I would suggest we start using the terms static quality
and Dynamic Quality as they are expounded upon in Lila and leave the
Quality of ZMM behind.

>
>
>
> We could also discuss why these “particular examples” are used.  Again, for
> example, why are the levels used to provide understanding of Quality?
> These levels are borrowed from Science.  There is nothing new about any of
> these levels, in fact they are rather outdated in the 21st century, where
> more "mystical" levels can be brought into the discussion.  Any metaphysics
> should be appropriate to the times, and these four levels are a bit too
> scientific for this type of discussion, in my opinion.  Quality has been
> discussed for thousands of years, and such discussion has included the
> DQ/SQ analogy.  All through those years, Quality has also been explained as
> that which cannot be named (or defined), but this has not stopped
> discussion of such.

Dan:
I disagree with the bulk of this. The four levels are meant to provide
a more expanded way of understanding reality. They are the whole basis
of the explanatory power of the MOQ. In his first book, RMP states
that everyone knows what Quality is but when they try to explain it,
they find it is impossible. In his second book, RMP keeps the
undefined nature of Quality (Dynamic Quality) while offering a
solution for how we do define it in the real world (static quality).

I guess I have to ask: what makes you think the four levels are too
scientific for this discussion?

>
>
>
> What Pirsig presents is a paradigm of "what is".  This "what is" is the
> same "what is" that has been discussed by man, forever.  Approaches are
> different, but the subject matter remains the same.  All these philosophies
> are discussing the same thing.  To comprehend this, all it takes is some
> reading in these philosophies.  I have tried to impart some knowledge in
> these areas throughout the years, as have others.

Dan:
It is called perennial philosophy.

>
>
>
> Quality is an adjustment in view.  It provides a manner for interpretation
> which is different to the objective approach that the West has succumbed
> to.  This is why Pirsig brings in these alternate interpretations such as
> Zen and such.  Quality can be analogized to the "fundamental substance" of
> all these philosophies.  Like I said, we are not describing anything new,
> we are just doing so in a different (modern) way.

Dan:
Well now, here you seem to be contradicting your previous paragraph.

>
>
> Throughout the years in this forum, I have presented numerous discussions
> on DQ.  I have provided many analogies which can be used to bring about
> understanding of what DQ is.  It seems rather ignorant to me that you would
> question how to discuss it since I do so continuously.  Perhaps you have
> not understood what I am presenting.  Perhaps you do not understand what
> Quality means.  Perhaps you think my only intention is to highjack the
> forum into something else.  There are always complaints, but noboby points
> out, logically, where I have gone wrong.

Dan:
The fact is, many folk have pointed out where you are wrong but you
don't seem to see it. Your use of the term Quality is ambiguous at
best. You continually resort to high-handedness and disrespect in your
responses and I do not expect anything different here. It might be
nice though if, instead of telling me how much more advanced your
understanding is than mine, you actually engage me in a productive
discussion, one we may both learn from.


>
> It seems to me that to participate in this forum, one must have an
> awareness of Quality, or, if not, one should ask questions about it and not
> simply be belligerent of another person’s opinion.  I am not sure what many
> are holding on to so tightly.  They need to let go and think logically.  Logic
> can tear reason to pieces as demonstrated by Parmenides.  We are a cult of
> reason worshiping that ghost of reason.  Quality is an alternative.

Dan:
To participate in this forum, one should have at least read Lila and
hopefully ZMM. In addition, there is a good deal of supplementary
material available. Reading your posts, it is clear you have not made
use of any of those resources. So I am at a loss as to why you insist
on participating in this forum. It makes no sense. I am not saying go
away, but I am suggesting you consider why you are here.

I am more than happy to make available to you a vast set of resources
pertaining to Robert Pirsig's work that I have accumulated over the
years. Just ask...

>
>
>
> In keeping with the discussion mandate, I will ask the following question
> to the group:
>
>
>
> Why are the levels important in understanding Quality?

Dan:
Static quality... the levels are called static quality, not Quality.
Again, your use of said term is confusing at best. The four levels
form the whole basis of the MOQ. Remember that if one uses the four
levels to construct an encyclopedia of reality nothing is left out.
Without them, what are we left with?

>
>
>
> Is this not worthy of discussion?  Is this not a fundamental question?  I
> am sure many have much better answers than I do.

Dan:
It only shows a lack of understanding, my friend. Let's try and do
better, shall we?

>
>
>
> We are here to discuss Pirsig’s presentation of Quality using metaphysical
> terminology.  How can we add to it, and where do we find it misleading in
> terms of our personal awareness of Quality?  Quality was well understood
> after the publication of ZAMM.  It seems much less understood now.  This
> may be because many simply dwell in the examples Pirsig presents rather
> than why he does this.

Dan:
Again, your method of dialoguing with others leaves much to be
desired. You seem to view yourself as some sort of sage, talking down
to all us poor uneducated souls lost in our own inadequacies. Get off
the pedestal, Mark. You might actually learn a little something down
here and quit wasting everyone's time, including your own.

Now, I find I must cut off the rest of this post lest Ron of the post
police should take offense.

Thank you and happy Sunday to all,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com