[MD] Contradiction and incoherence

[118]

Hi Marsha,
I get what you are saying when you say that "sq is not other than DQ".
 I just wonder why you are saying it.  That is, what point are you
trying to make?  It is with this in mind that I present the following
paragraphs that are open for discussion if you wish.

Pirsig presents the concept of Quality which he finds hard to explain
without sounding somewhat mystical.  In order to provide a foundation
to what he is trying to describe, he uses a metaphysical knife and
creates DQ and sq.  From that platform he then builds a structure
which is presented in Lila.  I don't know if you are saying that this
distinction is without meaning, but it would seem that you are taking
his metaphysics back to the beginning, where Quality is undivided,
rhetorically.

"Blue is not other than Red
Hot is not other than Cold
These are just things that are said
These are just things we are told"

I am not sure if your are saying that DQ and sq "really are" things
that can be seen as equivalent.  Of course they are not and they are
metaphysical distinctions.  We can certainly say that "sq is not other
than DQ" in the sense that the division is artificial, and both are
Quality.  Depending on the context, we can say that red is "not other"
than blue, since both are under the umbrella of Color, and we
distinguish the two only for the purposes of usefulness.  However by
removing all the colors from our experience by saying that they are
inconsequential much is lost (as would removing the distinction
between sq and DQ.  We can also say that hot is "not other" than Cold,
for the same reasons, and dismiss the whole body of Taoism which is
built on opposites.  For both hot and cold are temperatures and are
therefore “not other” than each other.

The intellect can divide things up; the intellect can also bring
things back together.  An example of the latter is the "sameness" of
energy and matter.  This melting can be useful since then we can
investigate an alchemical method for converting matter into energy.
The unity of energy and matter was already known thousands of years
before Einstein came around.  Since the West was so wrapped up in the
distinction between the two, this came as a big surprise when Einstein
showed through modern physics that they were not.  The Hindus were not
surprised by this one bit, since they already knew this, and did not
really care that it could also be shown through the metaphysics of
mathematics.

When you say that "sq is not other than DQ", what point are you trying
to make?  We already know that the distinction was invented by Pirsig,
and is a ghost in that sense.  Are you saying that the distinction
between sq and DQ is not important for the MoQ, and should be dropped?
 If you could explain this to us, we can better understand why you
would dismiss the presentation in Lila as inconsequential.  From such
understanding we would not give you such a hard time with your removal
of the distinction between sq and DQ.  In Lila, Pirsig goes through
great pains to provide a conceptual distinction between the two, and
some of us are wondering why you would dismiss that.  Maybe this part
of MoQ (DQ/sq) is not important for you, but you are not explaining
why the two qualities "should not" be made distinct.  Maybe you have a
better way of constructing MoQ, where "sq is not other than DQ", and
this would be interesting.

It is with humble intent that I try to understand what you are
presenting.  I am sure it is very logical, but I am confused as to
what point you are trying to make.  Maybe you could use an analogy or
be more specific where you are planning to take this remelting of DQ
and sq.

I hope what I presented above makes sense.

Cheers,
Mark

On 3/28/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I believe the RMP statement says that experience and value is the same; and
> I concede that it would seem correct to state that pure experience is
> synonymous with Dynamic Quality.  That was my point for presenting the
> quote.  For me, static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality, Dynamic
> Quality is not other than static quality.  They are two sides of the same
> coin: Quality (or Value).  I know of three "types" of experience; there is
> the conceptual, the perceptual and the unpatterned.  The first is the
> run-of-the-mill "thinking".  Second is 'direct perception' or mindfulness;
> it is what is directly perceived without conceptual narration.  The third is
> no-thing and without any patterns; it's awareness without concepts or
> percepts.  This third you might say is an interesting place to visit, but I
> wouldn't want an extended stay, nonetheless it offers an interesting
> perspective.  It offers a kind of first-hand experience that static quality
> is not other than Dynamic Quality, Dy
>  namic Quality is not other than static quality.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 11:03 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marsha,
>> Do you concede this or does Pirsig?  I am not quite sure who you are
>> talking about, but it would seem that perhaps you are speaking for Pirsig.
>>  Are static values the same as value for you?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
>>
>> On Mar 26, 2012, at 1:30 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha:
>>> I would concede that pure experience is synonymous with Dynamic Quality.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Value, the pragmatic test of truth, is also the primary empirical
>>> experience. The Metaphysics of Quality says pure experience is value.
>>> Experience which is not valued is not experienced. The two are the same."
>>>    (LILA, Chapter 28)
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha:
>>> Here in LILA, it states that experience and value are the same.  Static
>>> patterns of value are value, and RMP states that experience and value are
>>> the same.  Seems to me it is quite reasonable to state that static
>>> patterns of value are experience, though I might classify static patterns
>>> as second-hand (patterned) experience rather than pure experience.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>> 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
> 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
>