[MD] First Division 2.0

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,
> 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.
>  
>  
>  



Whew. This latest post of yours almost killed me by 'death by too much philosophy'. I've gotten there finally though..

How can we speak from the perspective of DQ, when DQ isn't anything? If DQ isn't anything there is no 'we' to speak.  This is why your claim that you can speak from the perspective of DQ, destroys DQ. It pollutes that which cannot be defined with the language and definitions of Mark.  

Doug Reneselle has a website called quantonics.com (http://Quantonics.com) . There he proposes changing how we write words from our new 'MOQ - DQ' perspective.  According to Doug in reality everything is 'intermingled' with DQ so our new language should reflect this. This sounds right up your alley.  Perhaps this is something you might be interested in?  Pirsig has written to Doug requesting that he call his new approach something different - other than the MOQ - because this is not what the MOQ claims. It destroys the MOQ.

> > '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?
>  
>  
>  

Yes I understand what you write but is there any shadow if there is no
candle? I think not. DQ doesn't exist unless we talk about it.
Remember Newtons Laws? They didn't exist until Newton spoke about
them.

  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  

I agree. Not destroy but to understand it. To understand that our
minds are built to see things as if they last forever. We gain this
understanding not with our minds but through experience. Experience
which shows us that although our minds see things as fixed and lasting
forever this is not ultimately how things really are.

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"?

It can be wrong because our intellect treats things as static and
fixed. But this isn't how things are. Seeing things in this way causes
us suffering. This is what Buddhism teaches.

  
>  
> 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"?
>  
>  
>  

Okay. To explain this I think firstly we need to discuss what "right" is.  Right is 'piece of mind'.  Right is... ""Okay, that's 'right', I don't need to think about it anymore, everything in its 'right' place. "  If I say anything.  Anything at all.  This can be taken to be an intellectual statement whether I like it or not.  When a child is born, then this can be taken as a statement about the right way to live.  Even unintentionally, people are saying, simply by existing, this is the way to live, in this physical condition in this place and time.  All values including a biological baby are static statements about a certain way of life.   

These statements or values can be judged intellectually.  We can question them.  As soon as we question anything, then this means it is no longer 'Right', in our minds.  It is open for re-adjustment and improvement. We no longer have piece of mind as it's quality is in doubt.  

This is what I mean by an 'intellectual' perspective, or indeed any sq, being wrong.  Sq can always be questionedI because it is defined.  This is against the fundamental nature of the universe which gives us that feeling of 'rightness' to begin with.  
  
> > 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.
>  
>  
>  

Okay.  
>  
> 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 the MOQ there are two types of understanding. You know either know something intellectually or you know it through experience.  DQ is this 'knowing through experience'. It is not something that can be understood by the intellect. We do use the term DQ to refer to it, but this is not it. However it's important to remember as I said above, that like Newtons Laws - DQ wouldn't exist unless we had the words "Dynamic Quality" to refer to it with.

> 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.
>  
>  
>  

Absolutely, the MOQ is the best general description of reality in existence. Because it's the best, it's also the most intuitive.  But that wasn't my claim. What I'm saying Mark, is that the only 'philosophy' I know of which has such an undefinable concept as central to it like the MOQ does is Buddhism.  I hardly imagine Buddhism as something which would be considered 'ordinary philosophy' amongst academics though.
  
> > 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.
>  
>  
>  

Right. But can DQ exist without these words which we use? I don't think it can.  And yes, this may sound like a paradox and like a contradiction but it is not.  The MOQ is an intellectual construction of a qualitative reality.   You and I can only ever discuss this qualitative reality for what we exchange are ideas. (I can imagine you replying that we can 'exchange' DQ. But that is folly.  'We' don't posses DQ. DQ isn't anything to obtain in this way.  We can only ever exchange sq.) Intellectuall, there is no reality beyond static quality.  But a DQ understanding is not contained by contradictions of this kind.
  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  

Yes, intellectually we are stuck in a sq world.

Pirsig from LC:

"From an intellectual point of view, Dynamic understanding is a logical contradiction. Logic does not control Dynamic understanding
however and within it there is no contradiction."
  
> I do not believe that this is a correct way to look at things, for it
> denies any place for DQ in our existence.  
>  
>  
>  

It denies it logically yes.  But as the quote from Pirsig indicates.  There isn't just logic in the world Mark.
  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  

Yes it does.  The only ever ideas you ever heard Mark, were sq.  They may point you towards some place non-sq, but ultimately, every idea that you have ever heard is sq.  
  
> > 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.  
>  
>  
>  

What does DQ 'mean' to you? It means nothing to me.
> 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:
>  
>  
>  

Your DQ? So you own DQ? DQ isn't anything Mark. It pains me to see you pull it apart like this.  'Your' DQ is actually just your sq, Mark.  What else could it be?  DQ isn't some thing that you own.  When you keep trying to turn DQ into something like this you are destroying the MOQ.  Furthermore, its in contradiction to what Pirsig has written:

"The best answer to the question, “What is Dynamic Quality?” is the ancient Vedic one—“Not this, not that.”
  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  


No one has their 'own' DQ. How is this even possible?  So each person has their 'own' DQ? This seems very SOM like to me.  Remember Mark, DQ is before *All* things including you and me and everything else. We don't 'own' it. If we own it, then it is no longer DQ and becomes sq.   

> 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.
>  
>  
>  

It seems to me that you are trying to get around the logical contradiction that everything is static quality. You have done this by claiming that we each have our own DQ and that each of our 'perspectives' is DQ.  What I will keep reminding you of, is that each of these 'perspectives' have their own values and thus their own biases and thus are not DQ.  You might claim that you can 'see everything' from DQ.  I don't deny that DQ exists.  I don't deny that you experience DQ.  Everyone experiences DQ.   But it is no more yours or mine, than the planet earth.  But even that analogy isn't right because the planet earth is something but DQ isn't anything. Our 'perspective's' are not DQ.  As soon as we say they are DQ, they are no longer DQ, because you cannot point directly at DQ like this.  
  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  

Mark, there is no big bad universe 'out there' before you or I existed.  We're not in a game of 'discovering' the universe as you have taken me to task about in the past.  I have explained already in another way above as to why what we do is against the fundamental nature of the universe.
> 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.
>  
>  
>  


I'll politely decline the suggestion. How do we understand other people? Is understanding others important? Is putting ourselves in other peoples shoes important?  

I think it is important.  I think there are a huge number of problems in the world because there hasn't been a common language with which people have been able to discuss the differences in their cultural values.  I think that the MOQ provides this common language.    If you don't want to discuss different values, then I would ask, why are you here?  Furthermore, I've explained above how someone not even speaking is a definition…   
  
> > 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?  
>  
>  
>  

You've asked me this sort of question before.  And I will reply that yes it is degenerate.  It destroys the fundamental undefinable nature of the universe.
  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  

This is contradictory to what Pirsig has claimed:

"In the MOQ there are no things in themselves." - RMP in Copleston Commentary.
  
> 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!
>  
>  
>  

I never said you cannot glorify with words.  The MOQ says that ultimately when we define we are being degenerate. However unlike Zen or some such other Religions, it doesn't try to avoid definition. (I've previously given the example of a Zen Monk who tries to get by without speaking).   What the MOQ says is that we should try and get these definitions as best we can.  So long as it's good you can do all the glorification you want Mark. This is how Lila finishes:

"Good is a noun.. Of course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or an adjective or anything else definable, but if you had to reduce the whole Metaphysics of Quality to a single sentence, that would be it."
> 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.
>  
>  
>  

Lol.  The MOQ is the best static quality idea I've ever read. That's all writings are Mark.  They're static.  The fact that the MOQ includes a non-static concept within it keeps it open to be replaced by something better... some undefined future betterness, you think this is a weakness?  
> > > 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".
>  
So subjective states such as 'being asleep' are not things and therefore are DQ?

As said previously - to get around the fact that everything is static quality, you're claiming that the 'pre-intellectual' is DQ. I get it Mark. But it isn't DQ.  Yes it *points* to DQ but it is not DQ.  DQ isn't anything. It's not a state of sleep.  It's not anything.  I really do recommend Doug Reneselle...  
>  
> > 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?
>  
>  
>  

Yes, *Ultimately* what sq represents is not anything.  My point is that you want to include DQ within a logical system.  But DQ doesn't follow logic.  It precedes it. There are actually *two* perspectives of the MOQ, not one.  The MOQ says that ultimately sq represents nothing. (DQ, Mark & Marsha perspective). But, there is another perspective of the MOQ.  That is of the value of static patterns.  We're alive and we can't help but define.  So we might as well get these definitions as best we can...

"It is only Dynamic Quality I think is impossible to define. I think definition is both possible and desirable for the static levels." - RMP - LC.
  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  

I'm glad that you are now beginning to predict how I will respond. It means that we are learning more about each others viewpoints.  But your characterisation of why I claim that the analogy is sq is incorrect.  I claim that the analogy is sq not because DQ doesn't exist.  I have said this many times.  Just because DQ is no thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  It does exist and we do experience it.  But it just isn't some thing to be captured with static concepts.   

Along these lines - to say that by learning to ride a bike affects our 'DQ' interaction with the countryside I think treats DQ as a static thing - which it isn't. The only thing which is affected by our learning to ride a bike is our sq interaction with the countryside. DQ isn't 'affected' by sq. This implies, that DQ is subordinate to sq.  DQ is there all along Mark, you just need to 'see' it.  Before logic, before concepts about bikes, before 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.
>  
> You keep saying that DQ isn't anything. Do you not realize that you
> are talking about something?  
>  
>  
>  

Yes..  In actual fact - DQ isn't anything… including this statement that it isn't anything!

  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  

By control I was referring to your statement about 'modulation'.  We do get lost in sq from an intellectual perspective.  You need to get out of this perspective and recognise that every thing is sq.   But there is more to life than just this logical, intellectual perspective.  
  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  

There is not a person alive who hasn't in some way, treated the thing as if it is its own thing and not what it represents.  By calling DQ - Dynamic Quality - you are guilty of that as much as you deny it...  
  
>  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  

You can say this about anything. But dogs didn't exist until we created the word 'dog'.  It's a good idea to think that they did, but it is just that - an idea. There is no 'world out there' Mark. It's a good idea, but ultimately, it's just that - an idea.
> 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.
>  
>  
>  

Yes, but there is nothing you can say which is not sq.  Just as Newtons Laws didn't exist before he described them.  DQ didn't exist before Pirsig spoke of it in Lila. Yes, a logical contradiction! But DQ doesn't follow logic as said previously...
> 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.
>  
>  
>  

Okay.  
> 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.  
>  
>  
>  

I don't know about moving on to better endeavours.  It does say to stop looking though..
  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  

Yes, and you have read Lila.  You know what DQ is.    
> 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?
>  
>  
>  

If what you posted had no meaning to me then would I spend so many hours (literally), responding to, and thinking about what you write?
  
> > 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?
>  
>  
>  

Err, choosing not to, is a decision?  
  
> > > 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.
> >  
>  
>  
Throughout this entire post you keep saying that, and i'll paraphrase...

"SQ is not what it represents.  SQ is just a representation. Stop confusing what it represents with the thing itself."

And I get what your saying Mark, but I disagree.  There are no 'things in themselves' like this in the MOQ.  Without the 'sq representation' DQ wouldn't exist.  I have explained this previously..

Furthermore, DQ can be defined. It can be defined infinitely as you continually tell me. Definitions don't exhaust DQ.  But such definitions are not DQ for DQ can never truly be defined.
  
>  
> > >  
> > > 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.
>  
>  
>  


DQ doesn't follow logic.  Logic follows DQ. Therefore, you cannot logically 'compare' DQ and sq.  If you do that, then you are treating DQ as some thing, which it is not.  
> >  
>  
>  
> >  
> > 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 power of conceptualisation is sq at work.  RMP talked about DQ in Lila. I talk to you about it now.  Never do I or Pirsig, claim that it's anything.  When I talk about it, I point out that the way you're treating it, to me, seems as if it is some thing which follows the normal rules of logic and can be talked about as if it is everything else.  It isn't. It's very different from every thing else we've been brought up around in the west.  It's a non-concept.  It's undefined betterness.  I'm happy to talk about how it isn't anything.  Including my statement that it isn't anything… What I don't think is right, is treating it as if it is just like everything else.  It aint.
> 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 agree. Definitions never exhaust it.  This comment of yours sums up the whole disagree we are having.  You just say this in 100 different ways, and I'll just respond in 100 different ways until hopefully we can find some agreement..  

So…. Without the definitions, that thing wouldn't exist.  Furthermore, there are no things in themselves.  The 'representation' is the thing. That's it. Newtons Laws. You get my drift..
> >  
>  
>  
> > 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.  
>  
>  
>  

Agree.
  
> If it
> is not Nothing, then it is something.  
>  
>  
>  

Disagree.  This is treating DQ logically.  It does not follow logic in this way. DQ is nothing.  It's a non-concept. It's just something you experience..
  
> 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.  
>  
>  
>  

Agree.
  
> Our minds are always in tune with DQ, that is why we have
> free will.
>  
>  
>  

Yes we can see things from a DQ perspective… 100% of the time, forever?
  
> >  
> > > > 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.
>  
>  
>  

Dynamic Quality both cannot be defined and it can be defined infinitely. But definitions don't exhaust it. Words work fine for what they do.  And that is to capture the beauty of DQ within a fixed understanding.
  
> > 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.
Okay.  
> >  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.
>  
>  
>  

Words form the sq part of the MOQ. They define the whole MOQ. Words point to DQ. They do just about everything.. Words work 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.
>  
>  
>  

I know what you mean Mark.  Our conversation is very difficult. I agree. But I don't think this was ever meant to be easy.  I think if we continue, with patience care, we will find harmony amongst our different views. The light might seem very dim, but it is there…. I do actually understand many of your words. I guess I just don't make myself clear enough.  I am trying though.  Words don't 'enslave' us to static quality.  They can point to DQ. But regardless of what words we use, someone can always come along and point out that they are not DQ. It's important to remember this because words aren't DQ. We shouldn't get too caught up and stuck on analogies. Reminding ourselves that these analogies are not DQ  
> > > >  
> > > > 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.
>  
>  
>  

This is where we disagree.  DQ is not a 'response'. How could DQ be a response? It is the source of all things. If it is a response what is it responding to?  As soon as some thing is found to be responding to some other thing then that means it isn't the source.
> I do not see that as a definition. I see it as a request to stop
> thinking along those lines.
>  
>  
>  

Being that it is words and thus static quality, this is still a definition..  
> > 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.
>  
>  
>  

The intellectual level = SOM + DQ?  That's a new construction...



  
> > > 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 can agree with that.
> > > 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
>  
>  
>  

I don't really know anything, but if I had to say something. I'd say the MOQ is good. :)  

Thanks for the discussion Mark. It's appreciated.  

-David.