[MD] First Division 2.0

[118]

Hi David,
I can certainly certainly point to what I speak from.  I suppose I
could call these assumptions, but they come from how I see reality.
Therefore a main assumption I use is that my reality is real.  These
are not assumptions any more than breathing is an assumption.
Assumptions, in my opinion, relate to the underpinning of a truth
which is created out of a set of provisional axioms, which are used to
base a logical argument on.  We can go that route, but in that case,
we must both agree that such assumptions do not need any proof.  For
that is the nature of assumptions.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:52 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Yes, of course I agree.  Attachment, in my own opinion, is the firm
bonding of one's own view to static representations of such.  Any such
attachment requires one to elevate the static to a position of
necessity.  The attitude of non-attachment is one where DQ is placed
first, and any sq is simply a representation.  As a representation it
cannot be attached beyond its use for illumination. There is nothing
permanent about static representations, since they are simply
convenient agreements that we have.  DQ cannot be an attachment
through its static representation.  A candle cannot attach to the
shadow it projects.  Does this make sense?

>> > 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.

Why do you say that seeing things as if they're patterns that last
forever is what we humans do?  For, clearly this is not the teaching
of MoQ.  I certainly do not see things as everlasting patterns.
Perhaps I am not human, but my relationship with Quality began in
1974.  I have had a long time to think about this.  My mind does not
see things as if they last forever.  Perhaps you are speaking about
yourself, and I would not lump humans together in this way.

I am not sure why you say "no it isn't" since we are saying the same thing.

Your presentation of Zen is rather simplistic and somewhat misleading,
and I am not sure how much exposure you have had to Zen.  Mine began
in the spiritual '70's, where it was discussed all the time, even in
philosophy classes I took.  Zen training shows us that we are not our
minds, but that the mind is very real.  It is as real as our
heartbeat.  We cannot say that how we see things is wrong.  In fact
Zen teaches this as follows:  Once we realize the nature of our minds,
the mountains are still the mountains, and the streams still the
streams.  There is nothing wrong with the way we see things.  This
would imply that somehow we are removed from reality, which is not
something Zen teaches us.  I have had many discussions with Zen
masters, and this was what was taught me.  We are not here to destroy
our perspective, simply to understand it.

Perhaps you can explain why you claim that the intellectual
perspective is "wrong".  That way I can better understand what you are
presenting.  A perspective is a perpective, how can it be "wrong"?
>
>> > 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.

OK. then we are on the same page.  In fact most of what we experience
does not exist in the intellect.  The intellect is for simplifying the
sum total of our experiences so that we can survive.  The intellect is
directed (or conscious) awareness.  But most of our awareness is not
in the intellect.

The reason MoQ is hard to understand is that it shifts the perspective
from one of SO to one which SO is created by Quality. It is therefore
more fruitful to look at the source rather than the end product.  Any
concept can be understood to exist, for that is the nature of
concepts.  They present the existence of something.  So I am not quite
sure what you mean by a concept that cannot be understood.  We
exchange concepts for the reason of understanding.  That is, concepts
cannot be separated from understanding.  If you did not understand DQ,
you would not be able to talk about it in any coherent way.  But let
me caution you so you don't think that the understanding IS DQ.  It is
simply an understanding, of which there are many.  As I have said, the
intellectual existence of something is a representation of something
else.  That something else exists.  If I paint a landscape, both the
painting and the landscape exists don't they.   We do define
"betterness" by the way (it is not a real word).  If we couldn't, it
would mean that we cannot think for ourselves.

In terms of the "ordinary everyday Philosophy" let me point out that
many of the concepts in MoQ are presented by Plato, by Aristotle, by
Buddhism, by Taoism (or its' child Zen), by Hermeticism, by early
Christian gnostic thought, by Hume, by James, by many new Age
movements, by Theosophy, etc.  So I do not see what is not ordinary
about it.  It stems from the intuitive and that seems pretty ordinary
to me.  Perhaps you are saying that MoQ is not a view of the common
Western man.  I think you are correct in this, although I cannot place
myself into the view of a fellow man.  Since all views are presented
in their static appearance, it is also hard to know where such static
representation stem from in each persons awareness.   Perhaps for you
it is not an "ordinary accepted philosophy, but I hope that it is
becoming one.  All transitions in metaphysics take time.

>> 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?

No, the pre-intellectual IS another phrase for DQ, in the same way the
DQ is an acronym for actual DQ.  What you are saying is that the
concept or word is not DQ.  In this I agree, but DQ represents
something as does the notion of the pre-intellectual.  Perhaps you are
getting stuck in the language aspect.  Language is made up of complex
grunts.  These grunts are sounds or words on a page.  The grunt has no
meaning unless it represents something that somebody is aware of.
This awareness of something is not an awareness of the words
themselves, but of what the words represent.  Static quality ideas
represent DQ, they do not replace DQ.  DQ is DQ, not the words used to
exchange ideas on it.  Such words are only temporary in any
discussion.  Words are like a telephone wire.  We certainly do not
consider the telephone line to be the conversation.

It would seem to me that you are setting up a false paradox here, if I
understand you correctly.  You are saying that as soon as we think
about something it becomes sq, therefore we are stuck in an sq world.
I do not believe that this is a correct way to look at things, for it
denies any place for DQ in our existence.  I believe that there is a
place we live in that is pre-conceptual.  This is DQ since it happens
without sq.  You cannot say that since I have now talked about such a
place that it is now sq.  That just doesn't make sense.  Let me try
this analogy:  If I go on a camera safari, and start taking pictures
of everything that I find interesting, and bring those pictures back,
my safari is not those pictures.  The pictures are just
representations of what I did.  Talking about things in sq format does
not make the things that are under discussion sq.
>
>> 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.

Yes, of course it is.  This is the interaction of sq and DQ.  I not
saying that DQ is a static thing, it is dynamic quality by definition.
 Unless DQ means something else to you.  We exist in DQ.  We create
static values for a number of reasons.  Many of these reasons are of
high Quality.  When words are used to dominate or coerce, they are
not.  However a conversation among friends is done through the use of
static quality.I will break down the components into simplistic terms
just to explain what I mean (please do not confuse my presentation for
what is actually happening, it is just a presentation).  Each line
below represent a cell which divides a progression just for the sake
of the analogy:

What I present to use comes from my existence in DQ:
To provide you with my DQ I begin formulating thoughts:
I then convert such thought into static representations (words):
My delivery of such static representations to you (as a writing):

You are on the receiving end, and hear my words:
You understand what the words mean in terms of your own awareness of reality:
You then convert these words into thoughts:
You then incorporate these thoughts into your DQ:

And you respond
You formulate your DQ into thoughts....
And so forth.

This all takes place in less than a second in a fast conversation.
Although this is a static explanation of a simple conversation, it
points to where DQ becomes involved.  I am sure there a problems with
this analogy, but it is simply a method for my explaining this to you.
Static quality is a vehicle for friends to share something, but does
not replace the underlying DQ.  When I say, "DQ" this is just a
representation that I provide you.  But it doesn't stay as sq once in
your head.  If it did, it would make you no better than a tape
recorder.  There is a lot that goes on in your head which is not sq.
>
>> 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.

If sharing things is contrary to the fundamental undefined nature of
the universe, then you would have to say that morality is also
contrary.  What we are is Morality.  There is nothing contrary about
us.  The universe does not care how we define things, and we have no
idea how the universe defines things.  It is not us against them.

Zen monks may go for years without speaking, and there are Christian
monasteries that do the same thing.  The difference between these two
is that the monasteries do so out of fear of God.  The Zen monks do so
because they do not see words as valuable.  They do not fear
destruction, that would be silly.  DQ cannot be destroyed, Never!
They do not realize that their non-speaking is still such a
definition, because it isn't.  I have no idea how you can say that it
is.  You are imposing your values on those of a Zen Monk who
understands Zen much better than you do.  This is of course one of the
difficulties with Western society.  It seeks to encapsulate the views
of a person in a distant country into their own views.  I do not think
this is a good phenomenon, and leads to much misunderstanding.  Our
view of Liberty is completely different from a Moslem's view of
Liberty.  I am speaking of the non-violent sort, of course.  Liberty
in the religious sense is complete unity with God.  The violent sort
of Moslem breed has the same view of liberty as many Americans.  That
is why we can understand how they think.  They want to be free from
our God, whatever they see that as, just like we want to be free from
theirs.

You attempt to encapsulate Zen thought in this way is doomed to
failure.  I suggest you drop it.

>> 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.

No, of course they are representations, but what makes them
degenerate?  Is the flower of a rose bush degenerate?  It is a
representation of the nature of the plant.  I agree with you that sq
is not the thing it represents, but it is a thing in itself.  Words
and writings are very real, we are doing something real right now.
Nothing degenerate about this friendly conversation.  I prefer not to
be castigating myself with a cat 'o nine tails all the time.  I do not
need to do penance for using words.  I do not see such a thing as
degenerate and requiring forgiveness.  But maybe that is just me.  I
glorify with words!

Just because words are presented does not make such things static.  In
fact a purpose behind ZAMM, was to get people "unstuck" from the
static.  If we relegate Pirsig's message to the dominion of the
static, we are lost, and MoQ would never amount to anything.  Please
do not consider everything we do or say to be static.  This would not
give Pirsig his due for his writings.

>> > 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!

How is something acting conjured in your mind as sq?  An act of
something is not sq, it is an act OF something.  If you want to
explain such an act to me, you use sq terminology.  You do not think
about the act while doing it, it is only after that when sq manifests.
 "It is so difficult when contemplated in advance, and so easy when
you do it".  While you are asleep, do you exist in sq?  You may say
"yes" because being asleep is a "thing".  But it is not a thing, it is
"being asleep".  It is a state of being which is way beyond being "a
state of being".

>
>> 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.

I do not see DQ as something.  It is no more a "thing" than the Yin
and Yang.  Yes, DQ is not anything.  What sq represents is not
anything either.  So what is your point?

Let me provide you with the following example of the symbiosis between
sq and DQ.    This is based around the concept of learning something
and incorporating it into your dynamic expression , such as learning
to ride a bicycle.  The learning process is aided by sq (for example,
instructions from somebody).  Once you have learned to ride the
bicycle, your DQ interaction with the countryside is affected, is it
not?  "Controlled" may not be the right word, and I apologize if I
used such a word, there is interaction between sq and DQ.  That is all
that I am saying.  And NO, I am not making this interaction sq by
talking about it.  I do not have that power available to me to do such
a thing.  If we were able to make everything we represent with words
static, it would be a sorry world indeed.  We would be with the power
of the Midas Touch, which was a curse.
>
>> 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.

You keep saying that DQ isn't anything.  Do you not realize that you
are talking about something?  When you say you cannot control DQ, what
exactly do you mean?  You are using DQ as a direct object, which would
make it something.  You seem to be getting lost in sq yourself.
Perhaps you should rephrase what you say above about DQ to better
represent what you mean, without getting lost in sq.

Yes, any saying is an sq representation.  I thought we already agreed
on this.  However, you state that if I use a representation, it makes
DQ something.  It only makes it something if you confuse the
representation for what it is representing.  This is fundamental MoQ.
Why would I think DQ is anything when it isn't some thing?  You are
preaching to the converted here.  Please read my posts with that in
mind.  I fully understand the implications of discussing DQ, I know
what makes something sq, so don't misconstrue what I say by twisting
my words.

We cannot get our heads around anything except for things we created.
DQ is not the only example of this.  We cannot get our heads around
"dog" since it has so many variables.  We simplify "dog" so that we
can place it and discuss it.  However our objectification of "dog" is
not the dog itself.
>
>> > > 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.

Yes, you are correct, controlled is not the right word.
Of course we interpret words in the way we see best.  if it is to win
an argument, however, that is nonsense.  I thought that we agreed that
the static patterns were not the thing they represent.  If I say that
DQ IS something, that does not mean that it has to be that thing, I am
providing a representation of how I see it.  Do not confuse my
representation for the thing itself.

Free-will isn't anything either.  It results in a choice, but it is
not the act of choosing, it comes before that, just like DQ.  You
cannot make free-will something.  Where would you find that something?
 Psychologists do not know how to deal with free-will, so they create
a brain based on conditioned response.

Do you understand what the Vedic thought "not this, not that" means?
It cannot even be approached through Western thinking since we think
that "this" and "that" IS something.  If both of these words are
nothing then how can one say that it is "not nothing".  Most people
think that by saying "not this, not that" one is explaining the nature
of something, when it does no such thing.  It just tells you to stop
looking and move on to better endeavors.  It says that to start saying
that something IS something, you are taking the wrong approach and
speaking nonsense.  That is what Pirsig is saying.  He understands
that by creating DQ as something he leaves most of it out.  He created
DQ so that we did not have to worry about such limiting boundaries.

By the way, Pirsig has quite a lot to say about DQ, more than Not
this, Not that.  This is because he is trying to explain something to
us.  There is nothing wrong with that for that is what Lila is for.

If, in you paragraph above your intent is to show me that my static
patterns for DQ do not represent anything at all.  That would imply
that what I post has no meaning to you.  If that is so, then how do
you formulate a response?  What does right and wrong have to do with
anything?  We make those concepts up.  Are you pointing to some divine
right and wrong?
>
>> > > 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.

Well, Hobson's choice also means "having to make a decision".  If one
has to make a decision, there is little free will in that, isn't
there?  So, we can choose to make a decision or not to make a
decision, right?

>> From where free-will comes from it is
>> pure DQ. We cannot define free-will.
>>
>>
>
> We can. I just did. Look in a dictionary.

Yes, but your definition is a static representation.  Do not confuse
that representation for Free will.  That is what I mean by we "cannot
define".  We can define free-will in the same way we can define DQ,
but these are simply static representations.  DQ is defined as dynamic
quality.  Those two words have their own definitions, and so forth.
We can define anything we want to with sq.  But that is not what I am
saying.  Any definition is provisional and contingent.  What kind of
permanence does any definition have?  It is all translated by the mind
into something else once it is understood.  If you really wanted to
define free-will as accurately as possible, you would have to consider
all possible contingencies, which you would not have time for.  Any
definition is a simplification of such a thing, and only
representational.  Pirsig defines DQ all the time in Lila.  He has to
to get us to know what he is talking about.
>

>>
>> 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?

The reason it is relatable, is because we have a fundamental split in
Quality of DQ and sq.  Everything that is not sq is DQ.  Unless there
is a third component of Quality that you are not talking about.  This
is simple metaphysical logic.
>

>>
>
> 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?

Well, then you do not have the power of conceptualization.  For any
metaphysical theory must have concepts to work with.  If you were to
create MoQ by first stating that one of the divisions is not anything,
then you would be left with a division of one.  I know you do not want
to talk about DQ because you fear that you may turn it into sq.  But,
my friend, you do not have the power to do that. If you can't get your
head around it, then you still have a long way to go.  I do not mean
in the intellectual area, I mean in the Knowing area.

The dictionary definition for Act is far from adequate.  For there are
more ways to define act than we have the lifespan for.  If we choose
to agree on a definition then fine.  But this does not mean that we
have fully defined Act.  Don't confuse the definitions for the actual
thing.  You seem to have simplified everything into definitions.
Reality is not so easy, for you are only doing that for the sake of
convenience so that we can discuss.  You could never fully define sq
either, for that matter.
>

> 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..

When I use words, they are fixed, but what they represent is not
fixed.  When you say it isn't anything, all you are saying is that it
exists outside of sq.  You are not saying that it is Nothing.  If it
is not Nothing, then it is something.  The only way to not lose sight
of DQ is to remember that the words are not it.  At least this works
for me.  The reason we see things as distinct and different is because
that is the way Quality works.  It creates qualities, which is all we
get to see.  Our minds are always in tune with DQ, that is why we have
free will.
>
>> > 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..

OK, I get your drift.  Then at least we pretend that we can do it.
The universe IS Value.  It can be expressed with values.  DQ IS value,
it IS Morality, it IS experience.  There is that enough things of what
DQ IS.  These statements do not make DQ a "thing" for Value is not a
thing, neither is morality or experience.  Only the words are static,
not the real stuff.

>> > 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.

Funny, I don't feel depressed.


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

Well from your previous statements, words are only static quality.
They are like a net trying to gather in the ocean.  Yes, they work,
but so do two tin cans tied together with a string work as a
telephone.  Our whole conversation is about how words do not work
because they are static.  Words cannot begin to represent the dynamic,
so they do not work very well.
>>
>> 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.

Well, perhaps my expectations are too high. It would seem that you
have misinterpreted many of my words, so that the rebuttals you
present have nothing to do with what I wrote.  What I was saying was
that words are only words.  What they represent is much more
important.  You claim that words enslave us to static quality, while I
say that they can never do that.

I grew up speaking Spanish, and I find that language to have better
ways of expression than English.  Even Dutch is better than English.
This is my opinion of course.
>> >
>> > 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.

Responding to DQ IS DQ.  It is not something, it is responding to DQ.
The sq part of it is only the expression, not what is happening.
There is no way you could define "responding to DQ, there is nothing
sq about it.

>> 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?

OOps, I guess I got distracted by an experiment I was doing and had to
run to the lab for a while.  I am sure the rest was nonsense anyway
:-).
>
>> > > 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".

I do not see that as a definition.  I see it as a request to stop
thinking along those lines.
>
>> >
>> >
>> > 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?

Heh, heh.  I am not sure what the question means since I missed a lot
of that.  SOM is a tool used by the intellectual level, it is not the
intellectual level.  The intellectual level also includes DQ.  That
was my point.
>
>> 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.

No there is not, outside of our creating such concepts, heh, heh.  Do
you really think that the biological level exists outside our
imaginations?  My point was that sq is an intellectual exercise, and
creates a bunch of sq.  We denote something as a "tree".   We
separate everything into species.  We create concepts such as liberty.
 This is why Pirsig says to Kill all intellectual patterns.  This is
one way of getting back to Nature.  With sq we stimulate our minds and
arrive at intellectual meaning, which is actually quite a lot.  We are
able to create a very full existence if we devide everything up into
itsy bitsy pieces.  I makes it seem like there is a lot going on.

Our choices exist outside of the intellect.  We only use our intellect
to explain why we made the choices, in hindsight.  There is nothing
intellectual about free will, since it exists before the intellect in
the realm of DQ.  Our choices are made by preferences, and then
explained with sq.  A choice is dynamic.
>
>> 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."

Yes, indeed.  I am glad that Pirsig can say that categorically.  I
certainly would not presume to know such things.  What I then stated,
was that we are rediscovering things that we have known before this
snowball of sq.  Do you know how many different kinds of apples there
are :-)?

But of course, I presume to know much that I do not know.  It makes
for exciting conversation, and passes the day.

All the best,
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