[MD] First Division 2.0

[118]

Hi David,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.  I can certainly babble about
things, and for that I appologize.  I find it interesting and
entertaining to find out what I come up with as I am writing, so I
also use it to understand my subconscious.

OK, so on to the marathon...

Take your time responding, or not.  It is just a friendly discussion
over the airwaves.

On 2/29/12, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I am glad somebody else thought of this.  In the past, I have
attempted to provide a method for writing in DQ format.  I think I
titled my essays as such.  I do not think if what I was doing was
understood by the group.  At least I did not get any responses on
them.  So perhaps Doug and I are like minded.  Perhaps he got his idea
from my posts

I am still somewhat uncertain of what DQ means to you.  Of course it
is not any Thing, since it comes before the creation of such "things".
 This does not mean that we cannot talk about it, as is done with the
hot stove analogy.  I still do not see any destruction going on, only
discussion.  We talk about things with the understanding that we are
simply providing analogies for something.  It does not make that
something static.  If I were to describe an opera I just saw, to you,
would you say that I have just made the opera static?  I don't think
so.  Listening to an opera is DQ, you do not think of it as some thing
while it is happening.  Unless you are bored of course.

Let me present the following analogies.  From where do you ride your
bike?  That is, what is the place from which you ride a bicycle?
Certainly you do not create concepts about such riding when you are
performing it.  Therefore, your ability to ride a bicycle is not a
static entity, until you talk about it.  Acting from DQ is what we all
do before we reflect on what we are doing, most of the time we are
unaware of it.  We do not spend time monitoring our heart beats or our
breaths.  We are completely in tune with Nature for those things, and
our brain is not involved.  The act of doing cannot be said to be some
thing, because it is not any thing.  It is something that unfolds
without preconceived notions.  This for me is a "description" of DQ,
but it is NOT DQ, just like the opera is not my description of it.

If we were to postulate that DQ is "this and only this", then I can
see how Pirsig would have a problem with it.  Pirsig is not worried
about destroying DQ by writing about it, in fact he wrote a book about
it.  He knows we will understand that the words are not DQ.  If we are
not meant to talk about DQ, then why is it part of MoQ?  I believe his
worry is that others will suddenly say "Oh, so that is what DQ is",
and completely miss the point.  If Pirsig does not know what DQ is,
then he cannot write about it.
>

>> 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?

David
> 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.

In my analogy, DQ is the candle, and our words are the shadows.   It
seems that we have a different way of looking at this.  My your
analysis, it is impossible to respond to DQ without creating sq.  By
my thinking, sq does not arrise until we create it.  As you drive your
car, are you creating every little thing you drive by even if you do
not think about it intellectually?  The dilemma you present on sq is
not my dilemma.  I think that perhaps you are presenting a paradox
which is misleading in understanding DQ. My view is from DQ, and is
not your view.  I can support my view with simple logic.

The fact that we stick to the planet existed before Newton, but his
concept of gravity did not.  He made that concept up.  In the same
way, DQ exists, just not in the way we discuss it, for that is
something we make up.  There is no way we can make DQ into sq.  DQ
will exist regardless of what we do.  If we are discussing something
that can be destroyed, then we are in a fine mess.  MoQ is a
structured approach to Quality.  Quality does not "Really" exist as
this structure presents it.  Those are concepts.  We create things to
share meanings, always with the understanding that such sharing is for
exchange purposes only.  Once words are understood by the brain, they
disappear.  Our thinking is not in words and concepts, it is much more
complicated than that.  The words and concepts are just the tip of the
iceberg.
>

> 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.

In my opinion, if we understand such things, then we are not trapped
by such understanding, because we have objectified it as something
outside of ourselves.  So if we create a concept that our minds are
built in one way or another, we are no longer subjected to that "one
way or another".  Understanding can bring freedom.  If I understand
how to swim, I am free to swim in the ocean.  We can create concepts
to free ourselves from them.
>
Mark:
> 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.

Well, I do not want to be taught to suffer, if that is what Buddhism
is all about.  Buddhism is for people who feel they are sufferring.
So if one is not sufferring, then there is no "cause".  I can see
things in a number of ways and not suffer.  I do not see things as
static or fixed.  How things are is also a matter of perspective.
There is no True way to see things.  If there was, you would think
that the majority of the population would be seeing things the right
way, and not some beggar with a yellow robe.
>
>> 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.

OK, I am with you in terms of the piece of mind.  However, I would say
that a baby is not a static statement, until we create such
static-ness.  A baby is a baby.  We could say that a baby is not
anything, just like DQ .  Once we start to contemplate such baby, we
are forming a static thing, but the baby does not know that.  From the
baby's perspective, it is anything but static, baby.
>
> 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.

Hmmm... Is it "right" to question?  If I did not read your posts, I
would think that you talking about blind faith?  God destroyed the
tower of babble because man was creating too much understanding and
threatening God.  Now,  I do not think this is what you mean, but I
have a hard time understanding what you do mean.  Things are "right"
until a better "right" comes along as far as I can see.  It is part of
the life experience.  One of the things we can do as humans is
formulate questions.  I think this is a good thing, at least it is
entertaining.
>
> 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.

I understand what you mean when you say "right".  Metaphysics is based
around questioning what is, so I do not think we can get away from
that.  If we propose some static concepts of "what is", we are not
doing anything to "that" which we are trying to express, for that is
impossible.  We are presenting ideas that others can think about.  I
will agree with you that any definition can be questioned, since we
make the definitions up.  The more rigid a definition is in terms of
acceptance, the more static it becomes.  If a definition cannot
change, then we are very static.  This form of the static would turn
us into robots.  We are not robots, we can think for ourselves since
our thoughts arise from the dynamic (Like "ouch, that stove was
hot!").  This is why I find dogmatic religions to be tyrannical.
>

>
> 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.

I suppose we can create that dichotomy.  But the division is not that
simple.  As I see it, experience and the intellect are very linked and
cannot be separated.  We develop intellect from experience, and we use
intellect to guide experience.  The intellect is indeed a very fuzzy
thing.  For where does experience end and intellect begin.  Before a
thought becomes intellectual (in its formative stage), what is it?  I
would say that it resides in the domains of DQ.  We cannot control our
thoughts, for this would require a "master thought controller, which
would also be a thought.  So what would control that.  Thoughts rise
and fall, we choose which ones we are going to hang on to.  By such
hanging on, similar thoughts arise, totally outside of our control.
We cannot force ourselves to think about something, we can only put
ourselves in an attitude as to what thoughts we are going to keep and
what thoughts we are going to dismiss.  This process lies completely
in DQ since it is not a "thing".  It has no definition, but we can see
it working all the time.  We can make definitions for it to exchange
information, but that is all we can do with it intellectually.  All in
my humble opinion of course, as is everything I write.
>
>
>
> 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.

Well, I would tend to agree with you based on my personal experience,
but I do not think that there is any way to prove such "best-ness".
The Christian concept of God is undefinable.  That is why one should
not worship idols.  The idols can be words.  Once the concept of God
is brought into intellectual discussions, its whole meaning is
changed, and it does not make sense.  God is not a thing, it is a
relationship.  Tao is not definable either, and Lao Tsu goes through
the same careful process that Pirsig does to keep it that way.  "The
Tao that can be said is not the eternal Tao" (or something like that).
 So far as I can tell, Buddhism does all it can to define everything.
That is because much of the teachings are based on the intellect.  If
you read up on Hermeticsm, you will find that much is accepted as
undefined.  It admonishes against the power that words have in
bewitching ones awareness.  Of course it does not say that words are
bad, since Thoth is supposed to have brought intellect to man.  Have
you ever read any mystical writings.  Such authors are fully aware
that they cannot define what they are attempting to explain.  That is
why such writing are very vague.  Every great philosophy (until the
West) understood the distraction that words and concepts will provide
the student.  That is why ritual is so important.  There are things
that the intellect cannot provide since it only works through
definitions.  Perhaps MoQ is a Western Eastern philosophy.  At least
that is what I believe Pirsig's goal is.  There are many established
models for this.  There are even Western models for this, see
Kaballah, and the teachings of Gurdjief.  Theosophy is equally
undefinable, see the writings of Rudolf Steiner.  Many poets deal with
the undefinable, see William Blake.  Even Dante's Devine comedy is a
parable of the undefinable.

Obviously this is interesting to me so I ramble on, sorry.
>
>
> 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.

Well we may have a problem with the word "exist".  I believe the claim
is that DQ is existence.  What does not exist is DQ "being" the
concept.  Of course we could not talk about DQ unless we had a concept
for it, so I guess the concept of DQ does not exist without words.
Certainly we can only discuss in words, but the words are secondary,
and only packets formed for exchanges.  We do not live in a world of
words, we use words.  We are in control of words.  Words are not very
important for one's own personal relationship with "what is".
Remember my analogy of the gift?  When we give somebody something as
an expression of our love, we are not living in "the world of gifts".
The gifts are secondary like the words we use.  They are temporary
only to get a message across.  Yes, we can only exchange sq because we
have to objectivize a subjective notion.  But we are exchanging much
more than words, it is what those words convey which is important, not
the words themselves.  They are just a vehicle.  Again, my humble
opinion.
>
>> 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.

Yes, intellectually, but not otherwise.
>
> 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."

Yes, it is a "logical" contradiction, but that does not mean we live
in a sq world.  Therefore he refuses the contradiction or paradox you
are setting up, as in "within it there is no contradiction".  I fully
agree with this statement, but not for the reasons you agree with it.
What do you think he means by "within it"?
>
>> 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.

Yes, I agree with this.  Logic is only a small part of our experience,
thus the importance of DQ in our lives.
>
>> 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.

I still do not see your point,  Yes, a concept is sq.  But what about
all the other stuff?  What is a concept before it becomes sq, and
after sq is no longer needed (like riding a bicycle)?  What about that
part of reality that we live in?  Words and concepts are shadows.
What about the thing that is throwing the shadow, before it becomes
words?  There is a Buddhist question: Does a dog have Buddha nature?
As common answer is "woof".  "Woof" is not a concept, but yet it is an
answer.  So, I could say that such an idea is not sq, and I have heard
it from a Buddhist.  There is a big vast world outside of words and
concepts that I participate in.
>
>> > 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.

I have explained what it means to me.  If it means nothing to you then
why do you bring it up in the discussion?  How about you use %4**&^##
instead of DQ?  Of course it means something to you since you read
Lila, even if that something is "nothing".  One cannot discuss
something without it having some meaning.  It would be like me having
a conversation with a Greek who does not speak English.  And you are
not Greek.  Does this make sense?

>> 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.”

No I do not own DQ, don't be silly.  I am trying to present to you how
I understand DQ.  What Pirsig presents in the quote is not an answer.
It was never intended to be an answer.  It is a mode of thinking.  So,
Pirsig is wrong to call it an "answer" in the Western sense, if that
is what he is doing, but I do not have the context for that sentence.
By presenting an understanding of DQ, I am not destroying DQ.  In fact
I am promoting it.  The only way DQ as a concept (yes an evil concept)
survives is if many people catch on to it.  Otherwise it is just
another dead idea.  This whole forum is devoted to discussing DQ.  I
do not see why you would have a problem with that?  We are building a
metaphysics, not hiding a metaphysics.
>

> 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.

Well, you are not understanding what I am saying.  Would you not say
that your understanding of DQ is your own?  If you seriously do not
understand it, then it is not your understanding.  By the way, how can
you say that DQ is before all things?  Are you suggesting a definition
of sorts?  Why can't it be "after all things", since it is nothing?
If it is nothing then we can not place it before or after, for that
matter.  So, you do understand DQ, then.  So stop saying it means
nothing to you.  This is just evasiveness.  Tell me more about DQ.
>

>
> 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.

Well it seems to me like you are proposing some kind of Dogma that
everything is static.  Are you really sure about that?  How do you
know, have you thought about everything.  Perhaps you are defining
everything as static, and then saying that it logically follows from
that assumption that everything is static.

Are you saying that DQ has got nothing to do with Values, or with
Morals?  I think you are wrong there.  Check out the subtitles for
RMP's books.

You cannot point towards your perspective in the same way that a
finger cannot point toward itself.  Not everything is something.  For
where does something come from?
>
>> 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.

Well,as far as I know, we are the fundamental nature of the universe,
and cannot separate ourselves from it.  So what we do is also part of
the fundamental nature of the universe.  I cannot elevate man to some
God-like status who somehow is separate from the universe.  I have
this same problem with Ham, who may suggest that everything is man's
creation (after man is negated, of course).


>
>> 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.

Where is the destruction?  Show it to me, I need proof.  All I see is creation.
>
>> 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.

Well I would claim that there are, and find a complete lack of context
in your quote.  My guess is that Pirsig and I agree on this one.  Is
MoQ a thing in itself?  If not how can there be something "in" MoQ?
Answer me that with another Pirsig quote, if you will?
>
>> 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:

I see a big difference between the destruction you are presenting and
the concept of glorifying.  I do not believe that we were born
sinners, and are forced to sin.  When we define we are being creative,
nothing degenerate about it.  We create, not destroy.  I do not
believe in this perfect world that we were banished from when we ate
the apple of knowledge.  This idea is somewhat misguided, and was used
for authority purposes.  So, I do not feel that I need to go to
confession for creating ideas.  As Zen monk does not "try to get by
without speaking".  That is not his intention.  I think you are
confusing Zen with some Christian monasteries where one must not talk
to glorify in God.
>
> "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?

When you read a book on how to get to the Amazon Jungle, that is
static.  What is not static is what you do with that knowledge.  The
same goes for MoQ.  As you read the book you actively bring the book
to life.  It is just words on a page before that.  You are not being
confined to static quality, with such "bringing to life" is a dynamic
phenomenon.  Completely out of the realms of static quality, because
it cannot be said to be anything at all.  Things that are nothing are
not static quality, by your own definition.  Therefore since such
creativity is nothing, it is DQ, comprende?  Just don't go and make it
something, or you will destroy it. :-).

>> > > 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?

Yes, of course.

>
> 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...

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying, thank you for that.  The
pre-intellectual is not anything, nothing at all.  It exists before
the something is made.  Don't confuse the concept for what it is
representing.

 I am already doing what Doug has suggested.  I suggest that he do it.
 It is part of spiritual rationality, if you know what I mean.

>
> 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...

Are you saying quite logically that DQ precedes logic?  How can you
make that claim.  I could just as easily say that DQ procedes, since
it is not anything.  By saying that a value of static patterns exist,
still represents nothing.  If not, then what does that represent
outside of words?  Please explain how you came by this dichotomy in
MoQ.  When you say we are alive, it that a definition?  So what we
have is a definition defining something else.  This does not make
sense if I use your logic.  Who is the we that is getting the
definitions as best we can?  Could that be DQ?  If not then sq is
creating sq which sounds robotic.  Where exactly does the "we" come
in.  How is the "we" not dynamic?  How is it that "we" do not act from
DQ?
>
> "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.

Well, again I am not sure what the context of that statement is.
Perhaps he means within MoQ.  For as I have shown, there are many
philosophies which contain the undefined.  As far as I can tell there
are many undefined things in MoQ as well, such as Quality, and
Morality, and Values.  Show me the proof that DQ is the only thing
that is impossible to define, and I will show you a thousand things
that cannot be defined.  Definitions are, after all, agreements on the
meanings of things.  If we could not agree on DQ, it would be a shame.
 Oh, I forgot, there is nothing to agree on,so let us just sweep it
under the carpet and pretend it does not exist :-).
>
>> 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.

As far as I can tell, nothing can be fully captured with static
concepts, not a thing.  So I do not see how DQ is special in this
regard.
>
> 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.

No, it treats DQ as a dynamic thing.  Of course I see DQ, I live DQ.
Perhaps it is you that needs to see it.  Nothing cannot come before or
after anything by the way, so by your logic you need to drop this
before stuff, it is illogical.  Nothing cannot cause 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!

 By the way, how does "not anything" result in something?  What is the
mechanism there?  It has no properties according to your logic.  How
do properties come about?
>
>
>> 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, there is more to life, therefore everything is NOT sq because of
this "more. "
>
>> 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...

Well, that is a big statement.  I only think you can speak for
yourself on that one.  I understand the distinctions between
representations and what is represented.  I am certainly not alone on
that one.  Open up to the possibilities that others may have already
figured this one out.  People are not only what you think them to be.
>
>>
>> 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.

What you mean is that the concept did not exist.  The concept was
created for a reason.  Why do you think we created the concept of
"dog"?
>> 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...

I am not claiming to "say" something that is not sq.  I am claiming to
represent something that is not sq.  If all we were was the language
that we used, we would be very hollow indeed.


>
>> 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

Yes, but do you?  Or is it still nothing at all?

.
>> 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?

My bad.
>
>> > 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?

Yes, we can choose not to choose, can't we.  Hobson's choice implies
that we HAVE to make a choice.
>
>> > > 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 what does that definition represent?  You will not find what
it represents.  That is what I mean.  We can define DQ until the cows
come home,but it is not going to do us any good, just like defining
free will.

>>
>> 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..

What you are saying then is that we only live in a world of words.  I
do not see it that way, but I can drop the subject.
>
> 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.

Definitions do not exhaust anything.  DQ is not special there.
Definitions are not the real thing for anything.  This is exactly the
same for DQ.  Nothing can be truly defined.  Definitions are just
agreements which can be broken at any time.  There is nothing
supporting these agreements except good will and necessity.  If we do
not want to agree on DQ, then fine by me.  I already know what it is.
>
>>
>
>
> 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.

Like I said, by your logic, DQ cannot precede anything, because it is
nothing.  It is you who is treating it as something before now.  I do
not have that problem with my logic.
>> >

>
>
> 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.

Yes, the power of conceptualization is the power to have a
conversation.  It is not sq at work, sq is doing the work for us.  We
are separate from sq.

As far as I can tell you are using a form of logic by saying that DQ
is before something.  How do you explain that?  Like I said, it is not
different from other things in the West, unless you consider
Christianity to not be Western.  Perhaps you could read some more
before making that kind of a statement.  Like I said, the way in which
DQ is presented is very common.  It is a method for not confusing the
words with what they represent.

>> 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..

Yes, and by agreement we are defining.  It is not so degenerate after
all is it?  Sound kind of mature to me.
>
> 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..

We cannot experience nothing unless we experience something right
after is so that we know that the experience before was "nothing".
Kind of like hearing the silence between notes.  Is the idea that DQ
is a non-concept a concept?  At some point you are going to see that
you have to be talking about something to use all the descriptions you
have for DQ.
>
>> 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

Yes, I agree.  All i can present are my opinions.  That is all i have.
 I do my best to use logic to explain why I have such opinions, but
logic does not provide a good picture, since these opinions come from
DQ, which cannot be defined. I cannot present in sq all that I know,
it is impossible.  So what you read is really a simplification of a
very undefinable thing.  So there you have it.
>> > > >
>> > > > 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.

A response cannot be defined on its own without bringing in static
before's and after's.  The response is not any thing.  If DQ is the
source of all things, then how do they become static?  Is it
self-destructive?  This would be kind of a cool idea, like the god
Vishnu.


>> 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...

SOM are just words, they are not the intellectual level, just like a
hammer is not the house.  It takes much more to build a house.  How
would you define the intellectual level?  I put my neck out will you?
>
>
>
>
>> > > 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 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.

Yup, disagreement makes me think.  So thanks to you.  Fundamentally I
think we are on the same page, we are just playing in the margins.

I am much more peaceful in MoQ these days.  I guess it opens up the
floodgates of my words.  That is simply because I feel very
comfortable with it, and can use it to explain everything to my
satisfaction.  But, I am sure that this too will pass...

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
>