[MD] First Division 2.0

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,

It seems our discussion is covering everything related to the MOQ under the sun. But I guess in order for us to find coherence in our viewpoints this is necessary to bring out the assumptions behind what we think..
> 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.
>  
>  

What is this attitude of non-attachment that you have?  What do you point towards when you hold such an attitude?  What is attachment?  

I think that an attachment is a static pattern. It is making a fixed thing out of nothing.  This is what static quality is.  When we act as if there is a static this or a static that, this is attachment. But this isn't how reality is ultimately… For reality isn't fixed like this.

'Non-attachment' is DQ. Just as DQ is no thing.  To claim that you're 'above' the DQ sq split is a mistake.  It is a mistake because you are completely neglecting the power of the first division of the MOQ in the process.  And the power of this 'non-attached' perspective is incorporated into the first division as DQ. Surely you can see this?  
> > 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
No it isn't.  This is 'seeing things without attachment' is DQ and fits beautifully into the structure of the MOQ.  This is what Zen talks about.  It talks about how our suffering exists because we treat the world as if it is some fixed thing. There isn't a person alive who doesn't get attached so says Zen.  Seeing things as if they're patterns that last forever is what we do as human beings.  Our minds see things as if they last forever.  

Zen training is setup to show us that what our minds think and how things ultimately are - differ. Zen teaches us to see that these 'attachments' aren't real.  Zen shows us that how we generally see things from an ordinary everyday intellectual perspective is wrong, and it is DQ which is fundamental.   

> > 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.
>  
>  

To be clear, I've never claimed that DQ doesn't exist.   Just because DQ is no thing. Does that mean it doesn't exist?  This is why the MOQ is so hard to understand. It isn't your ordinary everyday Philosophy.  It has a concept in it which cannot be understood intellectually to exist.  For what the 'concept' is is not a concept at all. It is no thing. It's just undefined betterness. It's DQ.
> 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.
>  
>  

While 'pre-intellectual' may be in the realm of DQ it is not DQ.  'pre-intellectual' is just another static quality intellectual idea that you are using right now.   I think claiming that things are DQ which aren't will result in an eventual unintentional strangling of DQ with static quality ideas which are not DQ.   This is why I harp on about what isn't DQ..  Do you see?
  
> 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.  
>  
>  

Nothing is 'incorporated' into DQ.  DQ isn't a thing which can have something 'incorporated' like this.
  
> Not in everyday, ordinary language no.  But such an act is contrary to the fundamental undefined nature of the universe.
> 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?
>  
>  

Not in everyday, ordinary language. We can't help but do things like send UPS packages. We're alive and we do things all the time.  But such acts are contrary to the fundamental undefined nature of the universe.  There are Zen monks who go for years without saying a word because they know they will destroy this fundamental DQ in the process. Unfortuantely they fail to realise their non speaking is still such a definition and thus no matter what they do, they will destroy DQ.
> 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.
>  
>  

The whole social level is a degenerate apparition.  As is the intellectual level.  As is the biological level.  As is the inorganic level. The words or writings and representations are not the real thing.  The 'real' thing isn't some fixed thing like an idea or a society or an animal or an atom.   
> > 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.
This act which you are speaking of now.  It conjures in my mind an idea of some thing acting.  This is sq. An 'act' of something is sq. Whatever you claim DQ *is* I will make a sq pattern out of it and say that it is not *it* because DQ isn't anything.  It's not even my claim that it isn't anything!  

> 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.
>  
>  

Wholeheartedly Disagree. DQ isn't some thing to be 'controlled' by sq in this way.   sq cannot control how it is 'affected' by DQ. In my opinion Mark, you see DQ as some thing.  Your mind wants it.  But it isn't some thing like this.  DQ isn't anything.  
  
> 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.
>  
>  

There is no 'modulation'.  This is such a very sq way of seeing DQ.  DQ isn't like this Mark.  DQ isn't anything.  You cannot 'control' DQ.  You can't get your head around it. It is before all things.  Including 'modulation'. You can look, on reflection, and say. "This undefined betterness is a result of DQ". But it is always on sq reflection. So any thing which you think is DQ like this is actually sq, for DQ isn't anything.   
  
> > > 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.
>  
>  

Controlled by DQ?! What are you talking about? When you treat DQ as some fixed thing as you do, then you are the one who is controlling it.  But DQ isn't 'free will'.  DQ isn't anything.  If it isn't anything, then it cannot 'control' anything.  Free Will on the other hand is something. It is a choice between this or that; A or B and is thus determined.  I'll wager that he didn't say this because DQ isn't anything. In fact he has claimed exactly what I am saying to you right now.  That is, that no matter what you say DQ is, I can turn it into a static pattern and claim that you are wrong.. The quote:

"Whenever one talks about Dynamic Quality someone else can take whatever is said and make a static pattern out of it and then dialectically oppose that pattern. (This is what I will do all day all night for the rest of my life Mark when you say what it is.). The best answer to the question, “What is Dynamic Quality?” is the ancient Vedic one—“Not this, not that.”" - Lilas Child.
  
> > > 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.
>  
>  

Hobsons choice has two predetermined outcomes.  Either take A or don't take A (which becomes B). These are two very fixed, very determined outcomes.  This is what is meant by freewill and it has a very distinct definition.  I can even offer dictionary definitions if you prefer.
> From where free-will comes from it is
> pure DQ. We cannot define free-will.  
>  
>  

We can. I just did. Look in a dictionary.
  
> 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.  
>  
>  

Once again, I've never said DQ doesn't exist.  It just isn't some thing which you keep on claiming it is.
  
> 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.
>  
>  

The self is all of the sq patterns which can respond to DQ. This is about as undetermined as it gets.  
> 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.
>  
>  

 I agree with this.
  
> > 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.
>  
>  

It doesn't *need* to be in relation to sq.  You already know what DQ is. You've just said so.  So, why do you *need* to 'relate' that which cannot be related, back to sq?   Just speak from the perspective of DQ. Which isn't anything.  Or speak about the value of sq distinctions.  Why is that so difficult?
  
> 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.
>  
>  

All words which you speak are sq. This process above which you've just described… More sq.
> > 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.
>  
>  

You want me to say "THIS IS DQ!!". But I will never do that Mark.  All I can say is what DQ is not.  This is all anyone can ever say. For DQ is not some fixed thing.  An act is sq. Act is a word which has a dictionary definition.  That's not DQ. You want to grab DQ. DQ isn't some thing to get your head around in this way.  DQ is just something you experience. That's about all I can say. It's that sense of undefined betterness. It's that vague sense of 'oh i think this is better'. But as soon as you do that then it's a sq pattern and no longer DQ. See?
  
> > > 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.
>  
>  

I think that the only way to not lose sight of DQ is to remind yourself that DQ isn't anything.  And that includes pretending that when you use words, they aren't fixed things and thus they aren't DQ. That also includes pretending that an 'act' before ideas form is DQ. Words and Acts are fixed things, with fixed definitions.  It's called static quality for a reason.  Our minds are amazing.  They can distinguish between millions of different things and all the different categories… The only way to do this is to see things as very distinct and different.  That's how our minds work and that is not DQ..
  
> > 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.
>  
>  

Well I can see how this would relate to our discussion. If you think that an 'objective' 'value-free' point of view is possible, then that is very different to how I understand things.  The universe is nothing but a bunch of values.  The only thing which is without values is DQ, which isn't a thing at all..  
> > 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.
>  
>  

Values can be exchanged between two people who are 'aware'.  How depressing that you think such a thing Mark.
> 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 .
>  
>  

 There's no need for telepathy.  Words still work.
>  
> 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”.
>  
>  

Words can still share values. We are using them right now.  They've communicated so many awesome things I'm surprised you think so poorly of them.
> >  
> > 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
>  
>  

 Yeah, but the 'responding to DQ' is not DQ itself for DQ isn't anything. "Responding to DQ" is a sq action.
> 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
>  
>  

You didn't finish here?

> > > 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 .
>  
>  

Right. I think the best definition of DQ is "Not this, not that".  
  
> >  
> >  
> > 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.
>  
>  

This statement of yours indicates that you think there is a big world 'out there'. Ideas are fundamental Mark, not the objective world.
  
> 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.
>  
>  

Okay.
  
> > 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.
>  
>  

These things are us.  You are your static patterns Mark. They are you.
> DQ does not
> exist separate from us, therefore it is no thing.  
>  
>  

To say that DQ is separate or not from us I think misses the point because it treats DQ as if it is some thing to be separate or a part of.  But DQ isn't some thing in this way. DQ isn't anything.
> 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.  
>  
>  

SOM intellectual level? Your a Bodvar fan?
  
> 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.  
>  
>  

So there is no such thing as inorganic, biological and social sq? Wow.

> 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.
>  
>  

That's not new.  That's the oldest idea known to man. As per Lila p 178:

"The physical order of the universe is also the moral order of the universe, Rta is both. This was exactly what the Metaphysics of Quality was claiming. It was not a new idea. It was the oldest idea known to man."
  
-David.