[MD] First Division 2.0

[David Harding]

Hi Mark, 

Just a forewarning, I will say that in your last post you've said a lot which I disagree with. To try and bring back some harmony to our discussion as usual I've summarised where I think the main source of our disagreement comes from...

The MOQ starts with Quality, then it is split in two - DQ and sq. Are we able to see things from this first 'Quality' perspective? Irrespective of whether something is sq or DQ?

To these questions I would reply that we absolutely cannot.  Such a perspective destroys the foundations of the MOQ. Something is either sq or it is DQ, which isn't a thing at all.  The world is made incredibly more coherent when viewed in this way.  You have spoken of the value in seeing things from this overall Quality perspective.  I agree, things can be made very clear when it's shown how DQ and sq 'interact' and are vital to one another. This is the value of the first division.  But when we speak about these things, are we really speaking from the overall perspective of Quality?  If we are, then why don't we just stay in this perspective all the time?   If you think about it, such a perspective itself actually fits into this first division of the MOQ.  Speaking of how two things interact is the work of static quality. When we speak about how DQ and sq interact we are making a fixed definition out of DQ. We are designating the undefinable concept Dynamic Quality the stati
 c name D
Q to help improve our static understanding of the world. This is why Metaphysics is a degenerate activity..

If you would like to remove comments below to expedite the conversation then you have my approval to do so..
 
> > Perhaps I'm not being clear so I'll try to put what I was trying to say in
> > another way. Things are made easier to understand when you take them to
> > their extremes. Then their differences become more pronounced. This is the
> > value of sq...
> > 
> > There are two perspectives of the MOQ.
> > 
> > The one, is that ultimately everything is DQ. DQ is fundamental. It is
> > before all things. It is the source of all things. This is the perspective
> > of the Mystic. From the perspective of a Mystic there is no such thing as
> > sq because sq values distinctions. A mystic sees no need for value in
> > distinctions because ultimately, everything is DQ anyway. You have said that
> > everyone is a Mystic and I agree. I agree with this perspective.
> > Fundamentally it's right. You cannot define things. You always get it
> > wrong. Things aren't fixed. But the MOQ isn't just Mysticism. It's more than
> > that..
> > 
> > The other perspective of the MOQ is that of static quality. From this
> > perspective what is valuable is clear distinctions. It likes things which
> > are old and complex. Within static quality things have very definite
> > meanings. And from this perspective there is no such thing as DQ because DQ
> > cannot be defined and that's all sq is, it's definitions.
> > 
> > Metaphysics is a degenerate activity. We are being degenerate here Mark.
> > We're defining that which cannot be defined. Sq is degeneracy. But this is
> > where the MOQ differs from Mysticism. The MOQ says that we're alive and we
> > can't help but define. So let's define as best we can.
> > 
> 
> 
> I would not necessarily say it is a degenerate activity. I see it
> more as a creative activity. The flower of a plant is not degenerate.
> Metaphysics is a presentation of DQ in static terms. This is
> extremely useful for the expression of the human spirit. I believe
> that DQ and sq are symbiotic. Both impact each other, and it is not a
> one way road. For this reason, I find the split of DQ and sq to be
> somewhat informative.
> 
> 
> 

Just so we're clear, what you are claiming is different to what Pirsig has claimed in Lila.. 

"Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity." Lila - Page 33.
 
sq and DQ are only both 'symbiotic' in so far as they are both from Quality. In the same way, such a perspective on how they are 'symbiotic' is a static quality perspective. 
> If we say that DQ is fundamental, we dismiss this interaction and end
> up with a deterministic outlook. 
> 
> 
> 

>From a static quality perspective everything is determined. I don't see how this dismisses DQ? You simply need to change your perspective.
> Free-will itself is DQ, but such
> fre-will is impacted by the sq that we form. As you have said, our
> static consciousness is continually upgraded by DQ. However, the
> structure of such sq consciousness must exist for upgrading.
> 
> 
> 

The structure of sq consciousness, as you put it, exists only on reflection.  It it only from a static quality perspective that such a structure exists.  DQ isn't 'Free-will'.  I have seen free will equated with 'choice'.  Often times, our choices are predetermined and have little to do with DQ. For example, we are given a choice to wear a green or blue hat, or pick a letter, either A or B.  Such a 'free' choice is not DQ as the two alternatives are already statically determined.
 
> Therefore, DQ operates within (or acts on) certain parameters set by
> sq. An analogy would be the path of a river. If, for illustrative
> purposes, we denote the water of the river as DQ, and the valley
> through which it runs as sq, then we can present the following: The
> shape of the river is formed both by the dynamic component of the
> water, and the static component of the land. Both are necessary for
> the final path.
> 
> 
> 

Certainly we can put the two terms DQ and sq into an analogy and see how the interact. But this is only for the purposes of improving our static understanding of the world.
> 
> So, yes, as with anything we can fathom, there are two components, DQ
> and sq. If we use the grammatical distinction between nouns and verbs
> we can analogize the same thing. Nouns are said to act, at the same
> time, nouns are acted upon. The dynamic nature of the static then
> comprises the nature of reality as depicted by DQ/sq.
> 
> When we say that there is no such thing as DQ, we are making a point.
> It is misleading to try to take this point farther than the point
> itself. If we do, we get lost in what the point was to begin with.
> The point is to present the nature of DQ as it relates to sq.
> 
> 
> 

The point in saying that DQ is nothing is to present the nature of DQ alone - irrespective of its relation to sq.  I agree that your analogy of a river and water presents the nature of DQ as it relates to sq, but that is not what DQ is. What you are explaining is the sq nature of DQ which of course, is not DQ.  
  
> > Ultimately explaining it is impossible. For words represent things which
> > are not it. You can only analogise about it...
> > 
> 
> 
> Explaining is creation, therefore it is possible and is continuously
> being done. I would not dismiss such explanatory activity as it adds
> much to our existence. If we see it as creation rather than a sort of
> uncovering, we do not get lost in it. Ultimately explanations are as
> real as anything else. But they are only part of the story. An
> explanation adds depth to our interaction with reality. We are
> complex beings. I find such a thing astonishing.
> 
> 
> 

I should be careful here..  Dynamic Quality can be both infinitely defined and not defined at all.  When we define DQ infinitely, we are treating it as sq, which of course, it isn't. This sq definition however, *is* a creative activity. But this sq explanation is only part of the story as you say..
 
> > 
> > To say that sq without DQ is 'hollow and without meaning' is a Mystic
> > perspective. It's not incorrect. From a sq perspective however, it has a
> > meaning of it's own. Sq's 'meaning' comes from the distinction which is
> > made. The harmony which is produced. And this sq harmony is a different
> > harmony for each different sq. Really, we are being 'non-mystical' when we
> > use words for things. I don't disagree that it is a mistake to 'prostrate
> > to words and concepts' and forget that the words are tools to realise DQ.
> > Too much sq can strangle the light of DQ.
> > 
> 
> 
> I suppose that we can say we are being non-mystical if we only look at
> the end product of the words. However, the act of creating the words
> is mystical in essence. It is no different from the sun creating
> light. The way we would be non-mystical is to think only in terms of
> the words. We, of course, cannot do that since words are only the
> final product of thought. There is much that goes on before that.
> 
> 
> 

I can agree with that. But every thing that goes on before that is sq and not DQ. 
> > But, really, Metaphysics is a mistake. It is capturing that which cannot be
> > caught. Let's not forget that or sq really will strangle DQ.
> > 
> 
> 
> Yes I agree with the stranglehold. However, any creation cannot be
> said to be a mistake. We can, however, use such creation mistakenly,
> if it surrounds one with bars like a cage. I prefer to to see what I
> do not as cage making, but more as bridge building. The Bridge to
> Nowhere, as it were.
> 
> 
> 

Yes, from a sq perspective that's right. But ultimately Mark, we're using words and endlessly trying to capture that which cannot be caught no?
 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > What do you mean by 'objective point of view'? You seem to use it
> > differently than my understanding.. I take the objective to be biological
> > and inorganic patterns. Subjective - social and intellectual patterns.
> > 
> 
> 
> What I mean from an objective point of view is to assume that what we
> depict lies outside of our depiction of it. For example, we treat a
> "chair" as an object separate from our realization of it. This is a
> useful point of view when we, as humans, are sharing our appreciation
> of things. By using the objective format, I can transfer to you my
> awareness of "chair" in such a way that you can grab it, run with it,
> and return to me your awareness of such a thing. Therefore, for the
> purposes of exchange, we objectivise things with words, for we need
> something to exchange. However, once the word gets into another's
> head, it is dynamically appreciated.
> 
> 
> 

In ZMM Pirsig writes about how this scientific 'objective' point of view is impossible.  Everyone has their own values, and suddenly we're supposed to pretend that they don't exist?  What's wrong with the better definition of an objective point of view being that of everything which is inorganic and biological?  But this will start off with a whole new thread I'm sure...
> Words are objectications of subjective awarenesses. The problem, as I
> see it, is when words are considered to be more than that. When this
> happens, words take on a life of their own. Dogmatic religion has
> fallen into this trap. It sets forth dictates which are then
> dutifully followed without any questioning as to what they represent.
> Civil laws are the same way. We are told that a piece of music is
> good for such and such reasons and we must therefore appreciate it.
> And so forth. I hope this provides you awareness of what I mean by
> "objective point of view".
> 
> 
> 


Aye aye aye.  "Words are objectications of subjective awareness?".  A SOMist would be proud.  You don't need to bring everything back to either the subject or the object.  What's wrong with the dictionary definition of words?  I think the quality that you're talking about here is when words are mistaken for what they represent and kill the DQ. Like how religion can sometimes, in its efforts to catch DQ, end up strangling it in too many static interpretations and rituals.  I don't disagree with any of that, but I don't see the value in such convoluted SOM like language.

> > > 
> > > I agree. It is more dynamic than the SO we create. It is not looking
> > > at the objects or subjects by themselves, but seeing them in a
> > > relationship sort of way. A tree is a tree, but it is obviously much
> > > more than that. It can be a better tree. In this way we get away
> > > from the relative comparison of trees, which treats the trees as
> > > "real" things rather than representations. For in truth, there is
> > > nothing to compare.
> > > 
> > 
> > Ultimately there is nothing to compare, yes. But here we are. We've alive
> > and we can compare. So let's get our comparisons and distinctions between
> > how good things are - the best we can!
> > 
> 
> 
> Yes, ultimately I guess, whatever that means :-). What we compare if
> we live in the sq world, are the objectivized forms of experience.
> However, the experience comes before the objects are formed in our
> heads. I think this is important to keep in mind, in terms of MoQ.
> My experience with one apple is different from my experience with
> another apple. It is not the apples we are comparing, but the
> experiences. The apples are simply placeholders, if you will, so that
> we can say to someone "this apple is better than that apple" We are
> of course referring to our experience of them. They do not exist
> separate from such experience. If we follow the tenent of Arete,
> which is quite missing in our current society of "Victims being
> rewarded", for sure, lets do the best we can!
> 
> 
> 

I really dislike the term 'objectivized' for reasons previously mentioned. 

And yes, 'apples' are an intellectual placeholder for a biological fruit. I don't see what  any of that has to do with Arete though?
 
> > When I say it has lasted forever I mean that the very nature of static
> > quality is that it is static and fixed. This isn't the only perspective we
> > can have, but it is one of static quality.
> > 
> 
> 
> What I would say is that the experience itself is dynamic. It becomes
> static when we intellectualize it. Therefore our perspective
> progresses as with steps: dynamic/static/dynamic/static... But, I
> agree that static quality will always be static quality. That cannot
> help but last.
> 
> 
> 

Yes, and everything you have just said is sq. Ultimately DQ, but we're talking right now so it's sq. Agree?
 
> 
> > Static quality is our perspective. It isn't our only perspective but it is
> > our perspective. Who is the 'We' who created the city if it isn't static
> > quality? I think the distinction which I highlighted at the start of this
> > post makes this issue clear. From a Mystic perspective, no thing created the
> > city. So 'we' did not as you highlight. But if we're to take the question
> > seriously, we, you and me, static quality, create the city. Static quality
> > is what you expect. The city is something that can be defined.
> > 
> 
> 
> When I think of "perspective" I am including the dynamic component of
> such perspective, not only the static end result. The "We" that
> created the city points to the human spirit (since the term spirit is
> not much liked, I will switch to the term "creative potential"), which
> is DQ in essence. It is the potential of creativity. We can say that
> such creative potential is "no thing" since it cannot be pointed to.
> Only its effects can be pointed to. Static quality cannot create
> static quality in my view. A brick cannot create a building. Yes,
> the city can be defined, but the creative potential which provides it
> cannot. The city itself as it stands with all its buildings is only
> the objectivised end result.
> 
> 
> 

Exactly. Even your use of objectivised I can agree as a city is made of concrete and physical people. 

We, do have a creative potential. We, can respond to DQ. But every time we act it is sq.  This comment of yours gives hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel :)
> > If what you wrote is an analogy, what is it an analogy of? DQ? If it is an
> > analogy of DQ, then the distinctions between this and that static quality
> > which you speak are irrelevent.
> > 
> 
> 
> Any analogy is a representation. Analogies work by presenting
> something that we agree on as having meaning to represent something
> that we are attempting to agree on (wow, that was begining not to make
> sense, but I will leave it in for humor). By agreeing on things they
> become temporarily static so that we can progress up the staircase of
> discussion and understanding between ourselves. If the analogy is of
> DQ, it does not mean that it IS DQ. Any analogy should be taken as a
> form of expression, and should not be confused with what it is seeking
> to represent. Therefore an analogy is as dynamic as you make it when
> you receive it. It is simply another package of objectivised reality.
> I would not get caught in that circle of "everything that we create
> is static, even the act of creating it". This is untrue in my
> opinion.
> 
> 
> 

Yes. I think this goes back to my earlier comment where I wrote about how DQ can be both infinitely defined and not ever defined.  In the same way, there are two types of analogies of DQ. There is the 'not ever defined' analogy of DQ which points to DQ. And there is 'infinitely definable' analogy of DQ, which throws caution to the wind and claims that there is some thing which is sq(and it represents DQ). With respect to what you have written above I would agree if what you are talking about is the first type of analogy.  If you are talking about the type of analogy - which is throwing caution to the wind and doing the degenerate sq Metaphysical thing and representing DQ as sq, then I disagree.  It's because of this second type of analogy that I think we need to constantly remind ourselves of its folly.  Otherwise, we may forget and end up strangling the DQ we are trying to protect.
 
> > 
> > Yes exactly, this is value of a sq perspective. It is useful from a sq
> > perspective to break a river into patterns of water. It is useful not just
> > for the beginner. There isn't a person alive who can help but make a
> > distinction between this and that quality. This is what it is to be alive.
> > So let's get these distinctions as best we can..
> > 
> 
> 
> Yes. To break a river up does have meaning depending on what it is
> used for. If we break such a river up in order to better understand
> the molecular nature of the hydrogen bonding so as to use this in
> constructing hydroelectro plants, it is good. But to break such river
> up for a ferryman is meaningless. When I speak of the beginner, I am
> referring to that place where we all start in creating an
> understanding of something. To break reality up into patterns is not
> useful for those of us who seek to look beyond that first step.
> Indeed, Pirsig wrote his book for the beginer as well. Believe me, as
> a scientist, most of my job is about deconstruction. I do this to
> make what I find useful for a future purpose. I do not yet understand
> what the usefulness of the pattern approach is, until it is taken to
> the next step. There is a lot of placid gathering around this
> drinking hole, but the migration must move on. All my humble opinion,
> of course, which sometimes comes off as not so humble :-).
> 
> 
> 

There are two perspectives.  The sq one, where it's valuable to break something up.  Our intellects like to do this. We're doing it now.  Then there's the DQ perspective, which isn't a perspective at all :) 
 
> > 
> > 
> 
> > To be clear - here you seem to be saying that thinking sq is DQ avoids
> > problems of 'robots following instructions' and a non-mystical aware
> > 'sleep'. But this is still more Mystical perspective Mark. I agree with you
> > but you are not talking sq. You are still talking from the perspective of
> > DQ where the distinctions between things is not important.
> > 
> 
> 
> I suppose that by saying our daily lives occur mainly in the mystical
> is a mystical perspective, but I would argue against this. When we
> make such a statement, it is not in the realm of a mystic perspective,
> but in the realm of logic. We are representing a mystical experience
> with a logical analogy. So the "robots following instructions" is not
> a mystical presentation. If I were to stand in front of you and act
> and make noises of a robot, that would be closer to the mystical way
> of presentation.
> 
> 
> 

> Even from a mystical perspective distinctions are important. However,
> the things themselves are not looked at directly, but what form the
> distinctions is. This that creates distintions is unifying. This is
> what I call Quality. Quality is not held by objects, but is that
> which allows us to distinguish between them. It comes before the
> objectification of such things.
> 
> 
> 


 This perspective, while it may begin in logic, ends up in, and points to the Mystical.  Here you speak about Quality.  As I've written above, I prefer the clarity which the MOQ's sq, DQ distinction brings.  As per ZMM - Quality joins the subjective and the objective perspectives.  It unifies them.  But in Lila, it is shown that Quality doesn't have to just be broken into subjects and objects.  The MOQ is a radically new perspective from SOM. Every thing is static quality and it lives on a different sq level.  We can say whether something is better than something else.  This is incredibly intuitive and powerful.

> > Yeah I agree, words represent harmony. This harmony is quality. One way of
> > making something better, is by doing it over and over and over again. I
> > sense our conversation will go like this. It might feel like we aren't
> > getting anywhere but I think we are. We are continually going over and
> > over, and slowly but surely, if we do it with care long enough, quality
> > can't help but shine through..
> > 
> 
> 
> Word do represent harmony. It is through words that we can harmonize
> a society. Words are useless to an individual in isolation, but
> completely necessary for the social level. Words are also ritual, and
> we need not separate them out as different from ritual. "I pledge
> allegiance to the flag..." So we are partaking in a modern day ritual
> here. Much cleansing can come from ritual, so long as the ritual is
> left once done. With words these days it is hard to leave them since
> they are so pervasive. It is a rebalance that I am advocating. From
> birth we are taught that words are so important. We all wait with
> anticipation for a childs first words and then deliver such praise and
> recognition that the child can only become part of the group's
> bewitchment. Feelings and creativity are placed beneath the Power of
> the Word. This can be seen as the split that Pirsig speaks of in ZAMM
> that is analogized by Plato.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for acknowledging my "rants", as it were (not my word, but from
> others in this forum). It allows me to feel alive and creative.
> 
> 
> 

Yes, there is more to life than these written words.

Thanks Mark,

-David.