[MD] Contradiction and incoherence

[118]

Hi Marsha,
I understand that one should not solidify the distinction between sq and DQ. I am not talking about static quality until the end of time, in fact I am arguing against such a thing.  What I am suggesting is that the distinction between sq and DQ is a useful analogy for which to come to understanding.  That is the reason the split is presented.  I believe you are suggesting the same thing.  For without first creating the distinction, we cannot say they are the same thing.

We can devise the universe into matter and energy and then explain that they are the same thing.  It is this form of metaphysical split and reunification that brings understanding.  I think we agree there.  This is why I asked you to explain why you use your "not other" statement.  Release from your "endless cycle" first requires understanding what that endless cycle is.  This is what MoQ presents.

Do you think that the metaphysical distinction between sq and DQ can bring about enlightenment?  If so, then we should start there.  I do understand why you wish to acknowledge that the split is artificial and nonexistent, and I have said that before.  But to make this statement you must first create the distinction.  

If the concept of God did not exist, there would be no atheists.  If there were no distinction between DQ and sq, MoQ would not exist as it does.  This is why I asked if you had a different way for presenting Quality, which starts with the premise that DQ and sq cannot be distinguished.  It is an honest question.

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Mar 28, 2012, at 8:17 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Yes, you can talk about static patterns until the end of time, but the idea is to understand (deeply) "how things really are", and "how they aren't"; to become disentangled from what keeps humans  thinking cyclical static patterns are, or have, an unchanging, independent, self-subsistence and the misguided activities motivated by such attachments to self and objects.  That is to move towards enlightenment.  Both RMP and Nagarjuna share the "perception that the indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static)".  For me, to study the MoQ is to explore and recognize the valuing process as one of interconnection and dependent arising and how cyclic static patterns have evolved; how they arise, persist and cease, both synchronically and diachronically, and what they value.  
> 
> But this is what interests me.  I do not expect that you will necessarily have the same interests as me, nor am I insisting you think like me.
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 6:50 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>> 
>> 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