[MD] lila's soliloquy

118 ununoctiums at gmail.com
Thu Mar 29 08:14:32 PDT 2012 

Hi Tuukka,

We can say that the distinction between sq and DQ is superficial, and
that what MoQ presents is not profound.  However, it is this
distinction which gives MoQ its rhetoric and properties.  I agree that
the "IS not other" needs to be qualified as you state, but this also
requires more explanation with the term "they do not differ, they are
also not the same".  This statement does not produce much
understanding without further explanation.  For "do not differ" and
"are not the same" are incongruous.

Perhaps, as you say, set theory is not a useful mathematical
metaphysics with which to present MoQ.  This would indicate that the
levels (which are a product of set theory) are also insufficient.  The
endeavor would then be to use a better theory with which to present
Quality, but this would not be MoQ.  If you choose not to use set
theory (the distinct sets with which to present DQ and sq), then you
should come up with an alternative.  Alternatives abound in
mathematics, but I am no expert on this.  This, then, is your
challenge.  How to present DQ in a way that does not bind it into some
thing.  If on the other hand we do not want to discuss (define) DQ
then we need an alternative to MoQ altogether.

We cannot even talk about static quality, strictly speaking, for
static quality cannot encompass itself.  Static quality is the result
of exchanging packets of information during discourse.  That is, we
need to objectivize something in order to exchange it.  In commerce we
create an object out of Value with money; we cannot then create money
out of money.  To objectify the sq objectification (create a
meta-static quality) simply gets us into another one of those
paradoxes which makes the whole thing useless.  Around and around we
go then, saying that what one presents is static quality and dynamic
quality cannot be approached.  In my opinion this is nonsense and
completely lacking any critical thinking.  This static quality of
static quality is often used as an argument to show that we cannot
even talk about DQ; this makes a mockery out of MoQ, imo.

So, what may be "alarming" is the creation of these paradoxes.  For
example, to state that all that we do in these discussions is static
quality does not get to the core of MoQ, but simply creates a
distraction which will keep us going in circles "to the end of time".
It is like saying that "thinking about thinking" makes thinking
useless.  Yet that is what some of metaphysics are about (Zen for
example).  The alternative is "not thinking" which would make
discussion obsolete.  Then we are left in our little silos and there
is no social level, something which brings much meaning to those who
are not hermits.

So let us get past this static quality paradox, and move on.  Let us
say that the distinction between DQ and sq is useful, and can bring
about enlightenment.  Of course we understand that the distinction
between the two is artificial for the purposes of discussion.  But it
stands to reason that this distinction is essential for MoQ and
blanket statements that such a distinction does not exist makes a
mockery out of MoQ.  We can sit comfortably with the distinction
between sq and DQ with the understanding that it may be a useful
split.  If so, we can drop this "IS not other" short circuit and
continue building a network.

Cheers,
Mark

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko
<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark,
> I see your point, but find it to be based on superficial evidence. But I do
> understand why you would consider it even alarming to state that DQ and sq
> do not differ. This is exactly why I said, that in my opinion, Marsha should
> have claimed that while they do not differ, they also are not the same.
>
> This here is a special problem regarding the nature of DQ. It does not apply
> to other splits, categorizations or patternings within the MOQ. I cite my
> letter to Pirsig:
>
> "At first glance, one might be inclined to define Quality as a set, whose
> subsets are static quality and Dynamic Quality. But like I said, Dynamic
> Quality cannot be reduced to a set, and Quality is not equivalent to static
> quality. Therefore, Quality cannot be reduced to a set, either. If Quality
> cannot be reduced to a set, any possible difference between Quality and
> Dynamic Quality is beyond the grasp of set theory. "
>
> Static quality is the only thing we can talk about in a well-defined
> discourse. The discourse in LILA is not well-defined - therefore it manages
> to introduce the concept of Dynamic Quality by way of metaphors and
> anecdotes. Therefore it makes to sense to compare static quality and Dynamic
> Quality - even to just say, that they differ.
>
> Best,
> Tuukka
>
>
>
> 29.3.2012 1:56, 118 wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tuukka,
>> As I just explained to Marsha, I believe the core of MoQ is to present
>> a metaphysics where sq and DQ are distinct.  Most people in this world
>> have no idea what "DQ" or "sq" are, so they do not live as if they are
>> distinct.  It is within MoQ that the distinction is made.  For me it
>> just doesn't make sense why somebody would say that the distinction is
>> not valid, in this forum.  The distinction did not exist until Pirsig
>> made it up.
>>
>> Of course this form of distinction is in all the great metaphysics of
>> the world, it is just not pointed to as DQ and sq.  Metaphysics is a
>> structure.  We create concepts and then build on them.  Why is it
>> necessary to throw these concepts away by saying that there is no
>> distinction between them?  It is precisely the distinction which
>> brings meaning, otherwise we are put back to a time before we read
>> Lila.
>>
>> Anyway, that is my 2 cents (or whatever currency you use over there :-))
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>> On 3/28/12, Tuukka Virtaperko<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark, Marsha
>>>
>>> what Marsha is doing here, is, I contend, the core of MOQ. The core of
>>> MOQ is to think and live like that. The further theoretical
>>> investigations are useful in various ways, but they are not the essence
>>> of MOQ. At least not for anyone who doesn't take an unusually profound
>>> delight in manipulating abstract concepts. Rather, they serve as
>>> justification for the stance that it's not troublesome, dumb or even
>>> confusing to think and live like that. Rigorous formulation of the
>>> theory of MOQ may silence some of the skeptics, and maybe have
>>> unprecedented applications in the future, but it's not living the MOQ.
>>>
>>> -Tuukka
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 28.3.2012 11:50, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mark, Marsha
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for posting a short one. I try to not do that often. But I think
>>>> all Marsha's answers here are good. She's not making any mistakes that
>>>> I know of. Again, sentences like:
>>>>
>>>> "Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality, Dynamic Quality is
>>>> not other than static quality."
>>>>
>>>> I'd say a slightly different thing: "Static quality is not other than
>>>> Dynamic Quality, static quality is not same as Dynamic Quality" for
>>>> clarity. But that's just minor tweaking.
>>>>
>>>> What I ecspecially like in these answers is that they are very
>>>> compact, yet the point is clear.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Tuukka
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 28.3.2012 11:27, MarshaV wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 11:16 PM, 118<ununoctiums at gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>>>> This makes sense to me.  For you is thinking just static or does it
>>>>>> have a dynamic component?
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot give an either/or answer.  Static quality is not other than
>>>>> Dynamic Quality, Dynamic Quality is not other than static quality.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> For me, most of thinking is following DQ, it is only when we
>>>>>> "objectivize" it for the purposes of exchange (words) that it is
>>>>>> temporarily static.  Our thinking is much more than words.
>>>>>
>>>>> I might say patterns, even intellectual patterns, are much more than
>>>>> words.  And I might say that human experience is much more than
>>>>> concepts and percepts.  My definition of self/no-self includes
>>>>> Dynamic Quality.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> An analogy would be to create value into an object through money.
>>>>>> The value itself is not money, but we temporarily objectivize it
>>>>>> with money.  Once we obtain something of value, the money is not
>>>>>> important.  At least in theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. It might be a workable theory.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We follow DQ whether we like it or not, the point is to realize this
>>>>>> and revel in it.  This is Zen, in my opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is simply a realization, and as such it is "nothing much", yet it
>>>>>> is everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I cannot disagree with this statement.  But knowing bikes can be
>>>>> ridden is not the same as knowing the experience of riding a bike.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Enlightenment is realization, nothing changes.  We follow DQ, and
>>>>>> isn't it wonderful!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmmmmmmm.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 6:20 PM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net>   wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not "whatever you like", but "whatever you think".  First with
>>>>>>> your question you create a world (and self) in time and space, and
>>>>>>> then you are bound to search and create answers containing causes
>>>>>>> and conditions and components to populate, explain and define it.
>>>>>>> Those causes, conditions and components (bits and pieces of
>>>>>>> pattern) that work best in your present become
>>>>>>> reality.  But again I'd like to stress I have never said "whatever
>>>>>>> you like", but "whatever you think".  Lila is pointing to the
>>>>>>> thought-trap that represents the static (conventional) point-of-view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>> 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

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list