[MD] The hard question.

[118]

Hi dmb,
Thank you for your exposition below.  Perhaps the disagreement is due
to the words chosen.  However, I would like to explore what you
present below.

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 8:18 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Marsha said:
>  ... As Hagen 202 (1997, p.30) notes, one of the most fundamental truths noted by the Buddha is that all aspects of our experience are in constant flux and change.  ...Please note in the above quote "all aspects of our experience are in constant flux and change".
>
>
> dmb says:
> This is exactly where you go wrong. You've misconstrued Dynamic Quality so that it includes absolutely everything, including static quality. That's exactly the point where DQ and sq are conflated. That's where you undo the MOQ's first and most important distinction; the distinction between static and dynamic. Like I said, Pirsig and James also say that (direct or immediate or pre-intellectual) experience is constantly in flux. But you are saying this about static patterns, which are contrasted with the immediate flux of life.

Mark:
Indeed, MoQ proposes a distinction between what is termed DQ and SQ.
This distinction, if I read your paragraph above correctly, you
demarcate at the intellect.  As I understand it, such intellect is one
where experience is constructed so as to form an image of what the
brain/body is interacting with.  For example (as analogy), from
incoming information, we are able to create an image of a tree within
our minds.  Clearly this image is not the tree itself, but a form of
it which resides internally.  The flux is the incoming signal, the
static nature is the temporary image which is formed, or the more
lasting image as is stored in the memory.  Each of us forms this image
in our own way as the result of previous activity of the brain, and
such image is not simply the visual (photon) component, but also the
summation of previous such imaging, as tied in with experiences
created by non-visual imput (memory of climbing a tree for example).

This boundary between DQ and sq is important to consider in order to
be able to discuss the nature of Quality.  On one hand there is a
persistence of the image since memory is cumulative.  On the other
hand, the immediate input which creates this image is constantly
changing, resulting in a series of temporary static images (like
frames in a movie).  An appreciation of the network in which static
quality arises is, perhaps, an important consideration, for such
network is dynamic and would seem to reside in both the "continual
flux field" as well as the "static field".  Distinguishing between
both at this particular region of conversion, presents an area for
speculation where there is neither DQ or sq exclusively, but a hybrid
form of both. In my opinion, it is this area which embodies the "act
of creation", from which both sq and DQ form.  This area resides in
the present moment, which I believe to be the "heart of Quality".
This is where Quality is always flowing anew and continually creating
both DQ and sq.  Perhaps you can comment on this conjecture.
>
dmb:
> Pirsig says, "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions". DQ is immediate, pre-intellectual experience. Static patterns (abstractions, concepts, definitions, etc.) are secondary. Direct experience is a continuous flux but static pattens are neither. They are discontinuous, chopped it up into stable words and concepts.

Mark:
Indeed, this can be stated.  What is perhaps lacking is the interface
between both.  In order to disseminate the concept of the two
qualities, I believe this interface requires further exploration in
metaphysical terms.  If the static "resides" in the dynamic as a
"pre-static form", what in your opinion creates the conversion?
Another follow-up question would be: Is there feedback from the static
into the dynamic, or is it a one-way street?
>
> This is what Pirsig means when he quotes William James at the end of chapter 29:
> " 'There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing.' Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used for the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality."

Mark:
My only comment to this would be to ask what is essentially "unreal"
about concepts?  How is it that they fall outside of Reality? For such
concepts are the result of very real processes.  If the wind bends a
tree, we can say that the wind is not the tree, but both are very
real.  If DQ is a source for concepts, are not both real?  Perhaps you
are using the term "reality" to draw distinction between DQ and sq.
If so, this statement redefines Reality as DQ, and "unreality" as SQ.
This distinction appears to be drawn from the idea that "unreality" is
quantum, while Reality is analogue (no stochastic separation between
moments).  This is indeed a difficult area to discriminate in.  Indeed
much of current efforts in physics are pointing towards a quantum
universe.  However, I believe this is simply due to the math used
where individualized numbers and concepts are required.
>
> In other words, there must always be a DISTINCTION between static concepts and the directly experienced reality, because concepts are NOT a flowing flux while pre-intellectual experience is dynamic and flowing. The DISTINCTION between static and dynamic is the most basic line drawn in the MOQ.

Mark:
Yes, this is important in the concept of Quality.  Is it possible to
expand on this idea?  Perhaps analogies would work here.
>
Thank you,
Mark
>
>
>
>
> 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