[MD] Dewey's Zen

[Ant McWatt]

David Harding stated March 31st 2012:

> 
> Hi Ant (and dmb mentioned),
> 
> I think this is the one area where I disagree with both yourself and dmb.
> 
> Firstly, I actually agree with your qualification that term Dynamic means "DQ at work". 

David, 

I've been thinking about that phrase "Dynamic Quality at work" over the last couple of days and just realised it was derived from a quote on a postcard by Dainin Kategiri Roshi (one of Robert Pirsig's Zen teachers at the Minneapolis Zen Center in the early 1970s) sent to me by Robert Pirsig in the late 1990s.  The quote read "In Nothingness there is great working".

>Furthermore, in line with your qualification - some (static) things are indeed more Dynamic than others. So, I have no troubles saying that something has been *affected* by DQ more than something else.  
> 
> Where I disagree is in dmb's qualification where we say there is Dynamic Quality and static quality in everything and that all things have varying degrees of DQ and sq. We cannot say that some thing has largely or 'more' Dynamic Quality in it.  That makes no sense to me.  

Ant: It makes sense to me.  For instance, take jazz music; possibly the greatest pleasure in jazz is hearing a new Dynamic riff on a familiar theme.   It would not make sense to me to be at a jazz festival and hear band after band and say the "levels" of Dynamic Quality have remained at the same level for each band.  Some musicians will be in a certain groove that night; some bands will be gelling; some won't.  Some new riffs will "work"; some won't.


>Dynamic Quality isn't some concept which can be quantified next to static quality like this. Dynamic Quality isn't anything.  

Ant: Well. it's something.  Agreed it's no-thing but it can be experienced and known.

>So, as I said, I certainly agree that some (static) things are more Dynamic than others but in the end all we can ever talk about is static quality.  Because everything is static quality and DQ is nothing. 

Ant: Well, I think the advantage of the MOQ is that it least recognises Dynamic Quality and allows us to place it in a coherent metaphysical picture of the universe.  So though Dynamic Quality can't be "captured" as a static idea, it can be pointed to (in writing and in conversation).  

> Furthermore, I think saying that there is varying degrees of Dynamic Quality and static quality in things muddies the beautifully clear, logical distinction that exists between Dynamic Quality and static quality as laid out by RMP in Lila.  If there does not exist this clear distinction between DQ and sq 
then pretty quickly everything we say about them become meaningless.   
So, some static quality can certainly be more Dynamic than others.

Ant: David, I think you're getting confused here by conflating "the menu with the meal" i.e. how we can classify reality (e.g. the four static levels plus DQ as illustrated in LILA) compared to how it's actually lived in practice.  Reality comes as an integrated  whole while  (static) metaphysical distinctions are applied after a given experience; depending on their usefulness.  And no matter how useful they are, these static distinctions can never capture a lived experience completely; they will always will entail some type of distortion.

Best wishes,

Ant



.