[MD] Creative Freedom in Jazz

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi Dan and All,
>
> IMHO It is not useful to describe Dynamic Quality as the "source of all
> things, completely simple and always new."  DQ is a metaphysical term,
> described as being indefinable experience.

Dan:

Hi Joe!
It is always a pleasure to hear from you... thank you for writing!

Well, I am merely quoting the author of the MOQ here:

"Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the
source of all things, completely simple and always new." [Lila]

So if this isn't useful I am unsure what part of the MOQ is useful.
This seems like the foundation of it all. I get the feeling a number
of contributors here believe we all should just make it up as we go
along.

I cannot help but wonder: how useful is that? I am operating under the
(perhaps mistaken) assumption that we are here to discuss Robert
Pirsig's work and in particular the MOQ as described in Lila... are we
not?

>
> The experience of emotions seems to be a proper analogy for DQ.  I do not
> see emotions as the "source of all things, completely simple and always
> new."  Intellectual activity seems to be a higher reality.

Dan:
I believe the MOQ classifies emotions as biological activity. So yes,
you are right... emotions are not the source of all things.

>
> Emotions may have been present when the founding fathers created the
> constitution, but intellectual activity describes the results.  DQ emotions
> are subject to intellectual activity as a lower level to a higher level as
> the delegates are to the constitution.  DQ emotions as perceptions evolve
> into DQ/SQ intellectual conceptions.  Evolution is alive and well.

Dan:
If emotions are the intelligence of biological responses then they are
apart and separate from the intelligence of the mind. When I fall in
love I am completely irrational. I walk around with a silly grin on my
face for no reason at all. When I am close to her though my body
responds in ways my mind cannot fathom. I revel in her scent, her
touch, her taste; the sound of her voice is like music.

So I know what love is but I cannot describe it any more than I can
describe the taste of an apple. It is all very mysterious and yet so
familiar.

But I am not telling you anything that you do not already know...

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com