[MD] First Division 2.0

[118]

Hi David,
No forewarning needed.  In fact I appreciate any correction for that
allows me to learn and grow.  I am not bonded to how I view things,
nor to how anybody else presents things.  I am often just a passive
observer and I let my brain do the hard work.  If I agree with it,
then I allow this brain to continue.  In fact I appreciate
disagreement for that allows a dynamic interplay into the discussion.
Agreement is good, but somewhat passive.  With that said, I will
present some arguments in favor of my sq presentation that you kindly
responded to.

On 2/16/12, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 summarized 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?

Yes we are...It is the seeing of things without attachment
>
> 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 static name DQ to help improve our static understanding of the world. This is why Metaphysics is a degenerate activity..

I will jump in here.  Quality is the blank screen on which our
deliberations are played.  There is no problem finding this blank
screen within if one is taught how to identify it.  It is, of course,
no thing, but it does exist.

I will agree that MoQ presents us with a conceptual division of DQ and
sq, and that is what MoQ operates on.  It is an operating system that
we interact through in this forum, we should not lose sight of that.
So, indeed, sq is presented as "that with which we speak".  The act of
formulating such speech outside of words (which is the predominant
aspect of the intellect), resides in the pre-intellectual, and
therefore by definition (MoQ's) it is in the realm of DQ.

As with any form of speech, which is a method of transferring DQ
awareness, we package such things in static representations.  However,
once these representations reach you, they are incorporated into DQ
until you formulate a response.  This is an important concept, and
denies that we are stuck in an sq world.  Of course DQ is not anything
since it exists before the "thing" congeals (the term reification is
often used for this, but the arguments back and forth on this word
prevent me from using it).

Degeneration implies a decline.  Sq presentations are not a decline by
any means.  They are a method of transmission of meaning.  Our own
meaningfulness in awareness is not sq.  It represents a relationship
between us and the cosmos at large.  If words are considered
degenerative, then we are insulting the human capacity for creating
such things.

This is why I say that writing a metaphysics is not degenerate.  It is
a simplification for export and import only.  When we package a gift
up for UPS shipment, we certainly do not say that the gift has
degenerated, or that the packaging is a degenerate activity, do we?
>
>> Mark previously:
>> 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.

No, it is not different.  What Pirsig meant was that the writings of
the metaphysics are not the same as the awareness of such metaphysics.
 He is not saying that the ability to write is degenerate.  This is
big difference.  For if our communication was indeed degenerate, we
are saying that such ability does not enhance, but simply places
something into decline.  This would place the whole social level as a
degenerate apparition.  It is important for all of us to realize that
the words or writings are representation and not the real thing.  This
is what MoQ teaches.  In this day and age of words and writings on a
page, this distinction is often lost.  This is why I find the
continual use of quotes by some to be somewhat degenerate.
>
> 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.

The ACT of symbiosis is a DQ happening.  Certainly the temporary
representation of such is in sq format.  They are symbiotic in the
sense that they both make up Quality, as you say.  I am not referring
to the perspective of such a thing, for that requires objectification
as if one is looking at it as a third person.  I am talking about that
which exists before sq.  This is of course DQ.  It is also symbiotic
in the way which sq can impact DQ.  This is how you present
consciousness as far as I can tell.  We gather DQ and adjust our sq.
Such adjustment affects how DQ will impact us in the future.
Therefore, such adjustment of something which is not anything, is a
means of modulating that nothing in terms of how it becomes something,
or sq.

>> 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.

It is not so much as changing a perspective as it is using sq
appropriately.  As I have said, I can have a perspective from Quality
alone.  I can also have a perspective from DQ alone.  So what I
caution against is what we "say".  Sq is not predetermined since it
interacts with DQ which is analogous to free will.  As Pirsig states
in Lila, "everything has free-will".  Perhaps I am paraphrasing there,
since I do not have the book here at work.

What I meant by fundamental is the idea that everything is controlled
by DQ, which it is not.  To arrive at such a conclusion implies
determinism.  For, sq is always changing not purely in response to DQ.
 It is a back and forth.
>> 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.

Well, how exactly would you say our choices are predetermined.  This
would degenerate what is meant by choice.  If there is
predetermination, then you cannot call such a thing “choice”.  Choice
implies free will, it does not imply predetermined outcome.   Even
Hobson’s choice is a choice.  From where free-will comes from it is
pure DQ.  We cannot define free-will.  When we look for it through sq,
we cannot find it.  Sometimes it is for these “unfinding” reasons that
we say it does not exist.  If this were true, we could also say that
DQ does not exist, yet here we are corresponding about it.  Many
people make the same mistake by claiming the “self” does not exist.
This is also an argument for determinism.  That is, everything we are
was set forth by a predetermined pattern which is only unfolding
without changing from the original intent.
Yes, sq is an attempt to provide an image (on reflection) of what we
are aware of.  Such awareness is pure DQ, and exists before the words
and concepts.  Since the image is not there yet, it is no-thing.
>
>
> 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.
>>
Yup.

>> 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.

It cannot be irrespective since it needs to be in relation to sq.
Otherwise the DQ/sq divide has no meaning, imo.   Metaphysics is a
quest for meaning.  I KNOW that is not what DQ is.  I do not know how
many ways I can say this.  What I am presenting, best I can through
words is my awareness of DQ which happens outside of words.  When I
send you a gift, my intention cannot be found in the gift itself.
This is simple common sense.  If you then turn around and tell me that
my gift is NOT the intention behind it, you are quite right.  The gift
is a presentation of my intention.  I would not then say that such
gift is the intention.  So, please do not misconstrue what I am
writing.  I am not stuck in sq, as you are not either.

What goes on in my head is far more than the words I am presenting
you.  I could say the same thing in thousands of different ways.  I
choose certain words that I feel with best deliver to your DQ the
sense that I have.  Once the words get into your mind, they disappear
completely.  They  resurface when you choose to respond.  Such choice
is not determined by the way.  I find it important not to give words
more power than they have.

>> 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..

No, we are not treating it as sq.  We are using sq.  Again, refer to
the gift analogy I present above.  The act of creating sq is DQ.
Unless you have another way to present DQ which is at odds with this,
which I will consider.
>> 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?

I do not see it as trying to capture, I see it as trying to convey.
Words are only as good as they are used.  We do not enclose anything
with words unless one loses sight of DQ.  This is what MoQ admonishes
against.  But, I will agree that a one dimensional view of words makes
them as real as that which they represent.  Rhetoric is a powerful
tool, but it is rhetoric not truth.
>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > 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...
Well yes, I guess it would depend on what one means by impossible.
That we do it, makes it possible.  That we get lost in thinking that
it is real is the shame.   I too do not want to get out into the
safari of of finding the truth about the objective, either.
>
> 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.

Hmmmm…What I am saying is that words are used as objects so that they
can be exchanged.  Subjective awareness as it currently stands cannot
be exchanged.  This will change once we figure out telepathy.  In such
telepathic communication, I envision the complete removal of words as
a useful method of conversation.  Instead, we will be transferring
broad appreciations of that which lies beneath the words.  I could say
that such transfer is one of “feelings”, but I would be taken to task
by many MoQers who think the intellectual is more than the expression
of awareness which is more closely related to feelings than it is to
some mathematical formula.  Especially since those things do not exist
outside our simple intellect.  Such telepathic ability will certainly
diminish the hold that sq currently has on our civilization.  It may
even make politics more bearable .

I am with you on the distaste for formalized and dogmatic religion.
That was not the intention of the original messages.  There is a
saying “Do not worship false idols”.  I could change this to MoQ terms
by saying “do not worship sq”.  It is the same thing.  So, we are left
with Do as I do, not as I say form of instruction, where words are
unnecessary as part of any “teaching”.
>
> 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 :)
The action itself is not sq, it is the reflection on such action which
is, IMO.  When we “respond to DQ” we are doing something prior to the
creation of sq.  Like jumping off a hot stove.  In order to commit
such a thing to memory so that it does not happen we create sq.  It is
with this sq that we teach our children not to sit on a hot stove.  In
this way we help with their reaction to DQ.  The point is not to
provide dogma such as “do not sit on a hot stove” without providing
the DQ foundation for such a command.  Explaining is always important
so that the wordless appreciation that such child has when around hot
stoves is fully within the DQ area, and the child does not have to
intellectualize it.
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 reality presented as a thing.
>
> 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, any definition can never fully represent that which it is
defining.  It is simply short hand for something which is ultimately
indefinable.  The usefulness of any definition lies in the agreement
behind it.  If we do not agree on the definition of a word, then we
are left meandering into semantics as many discussion tend to do in
this forum.  For example: “DQ is anything I want it to be, it is all
relative after all!”  Just plain stupid if you ask me.  Of course I am
not being judgemental .
>
>
> 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 :)
>
Yes, but I also believe that sq can put things together.  We can
easily imagine things that we have never seen.  Or we can create
things that have never existed before.  Breaking things up is a nice
intellectual exercise, but putting them back together, well, that is
creativity.  I have to admit I often take things apart in my house and
have no idea how to put them back together.  So they reside in pieces
in my garage.  It was fun taking them apart though.
>> 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.

Yes, of course.  An easy way to break down the SO perspective is to
see everything as an extension of oneself.  There are philosophies
based on this.  Another approach is to see the subjective as
non-existent, again there are philosophies based around this.  MoQ
takes another approach, and that is to consolidate everything into
Quality.  This is similar to the concept that everything is God.  Of
course that statement is often misconstrued into absurdity.

Yes, everything that we put down on paper is sq.  That is why they are
called things.  They exist, somehow separate from us.  DQ does not
exist separate from us, therefore it is no thing.  However, I would
caution against thinking that choices reside only in the arena of sq.
For indeed most of our daily choices are made without us even placing
them into the SOM intellectual level.  These are “true choices”, and
are made so that we can live and move about.  It is only that which
resides in the intellect that is sq.   I believe everybody has always
been able to say whether something is better than something else that
is not new.  What may be new (at least from the last two centuries) is
the point that betterness and morality (and values) are part of the
universe as a whole, and not simply some subjective thing that we come
up with.
>
I hope I was able to express myself understandably, and did not step
on any toes, for that is not my intention.  Like I said, intellectual
disagreement is good.  It is when discussions in this forum get into
emotional disagreement that things fall apart.

Yes, I know, GUILTY.

Thanks David,
Mark

> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>