[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,

You break up what I write into so many different pieces our discussion very quickly became chaotic and meaningless… 

Anyway - This is what most of your writing says:

"THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF STATIC QUALITY IS DYNAMIC QUALITY!!"

An exposition of this I've pasted below:

> Mark:  Here is the deal.  You are creating a cage by claiming that words
> relegate what they are describing to writings on a page.  I am providing
> you a key to get out of this cage, by telling you that words are just
> descriptions of something and not the thing in itself.
> 
> By way of example:  Light is described as either waves or particles.  Do
> you really think that light is a wave or a particle?  Of course it isn't,
> that is just a description for it!  Light is neither waves or particles.
> This form of description falls out of the math.  The math did not create
> light.

The description does not fall out of the math. It falls out of the observation of the inorganic waves and particles.   Our maths attempts to explain those observations in an intellectually coherent way but the math is not the inorganic values. And I'm sure this last sentence is not enough to change your mind… You also ask..

> Again, I will ask you to give me
> the relationship between DQ and sq so that I can understand where you are
> coming from.

I will start by highlighting the mistake you make in this first division :  You are stuck in looking at the MOQ from one perspective only.  That is the perspective of the Mystic.  You will deny this for all mystics deny they are such because they do not like definitions such as 'mystic'.  Like all mystics you think that the only really true thing is DQ and that sq is not as important.   You constantly point to DQ. I get that.  But metaphysics is not so interested in just DQ. The MOQ has been created to look at the value of static patterns.  Metaphysics does nothing for the mystic.  Metaphysics as a bunch of ideas takes the mystic *away* from DQ. 

All you are interested in is the 'fundamental nature' - There is more to the MOQ than this.  Words point to more than this.   If I point to the value of the intellectual level or the value of the social level or the value of the biological level or the value of the inorganic level, then all you seek to do is point to where it is from and what it is created by.  I know this.  The MOQ says this.  But the MOQ created these static quality distinctions for a reason.  It created them to look at them intellectually.  To discuss them intellectually.  It gave Dynamic Quality a name so it could discuss it intellectually.   This is not valuable Mystically.  The intellect destroys the mystic nature of the universe.  The intellect breaks up the undefined nature of the universe and turns it into fixed metaphysical meanings.  This is good intellectually, but degenerate mystically.  Below is some responses to some of what you have written.. 

Before I begin though, I would like to re-iterate the value in quoting Lila and ZMM.  If our ideas are not traceable back to these two books, then we might as well be talking gibberish.  If you disagree with Pirsig on anything he has written in Lila or ZMM then please say so because that is very interesting.  If not, please show me another quote which indicates that my quotation is wrong.  

> Mark: Yes, the thought is static quality, but what creates that
> thought?  Static
> quality cannot create itself.  It is a dead end product, that is why it is
> called static (Remember?).  We create static quality because we are not
> static.

We are static and create static patterns by responding to Dynamic Quality.   We are not Dynamic Quality. This is confirmed by Pirsig where he writes:

"The MOQ says it[the self] is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality. "


> Mark:  OK.  Have I spoken mysticism to date?  I have no idea what you are
> talking about.

> Mark:  My Self is No Thing.  Look for it and you will not find it.  I am DQ!
> You may think you are SQ, but you are not.

This is in contradiction to what Pirsig has written in Lila's Child:

"The MOQ says it[the self] is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality."

> Mark: I am not stuck, I am sorry that you are.  You can try as hard as you
> want to get me stuck, but it ain’t going to work.  Been there, done that.

You've been stuck? That's interesting.  Tell me more about that experience?

> Mark: No, you are speaking of the definition of the biological level, not
> the biological level itself.  The biological level cannot be defined since
> we live in the social/intellectual level when we are forming definitions.
> I am not conflating DQ and sq, you are.  *The biological level gives us the
> ability to describe the biological level in intellectual format.  But this
> description is not the biological level, it is a projection from out
> intellect.*

Yes, that's right.  Our intellect describes the biological level.  I agree. This description is not the biological level.  I also agree with that.  A rare agreement. 

However, this goes back to the original issue of which comes first - ideas or matter.   The MOQ says that quality comes first, which creates ideas, which create what we call 'matter'.  However, it is a good idea to say that matter existed before ideas.  Therefore, it's best to say which comes first depending on context..

> Mark:  Well David, I can say the same for you.  You are stuck in SQ in some
> two dimensional world.  It is you who need to confront this cage you are
> making around yourself before it is too late.  MOQ provides the key.

I am static patterns.  Everything I can call 'me' is static patterns.  However, I can respond to Dynamic Quality… this is confirmed by Pirsig where he writes:

"The MOQ says it[the self] is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality. "

> The intellect is a translation system.  It is what converts DQ to SQ and is
> also DQ.  The act of creating thoughts is DQ, that is why such a process is
> dynamic, and it cannot be pointed to with SQ.  I am talking about that
> interface between DQ and sq.  This "first division" as you say.  Perhaps
> you have a better interpretation of this interface between DQ and SQ.  If
> so, I would like to hear it.

The intellect is not DQ.  The intellect is defined as that which manipulates things independently of that which it represents.. That's it.  Dynamic Quality, on the other hand, cannot be defined.  As Pirsig writes:

"Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity."

> Mark:  No that is not what I seek, that is what you want me to seek.  DQ
> cannot be captured in SQ, that is impossible.  It is you who are capturing
> DQ in sq, by relegating everything to SQ.  What do you mean by the
> ultimately nature of the universe.  Are are we not part of this universe?
> Is this universe separate from us in some magical way?"  We ARE the nature
> of the universe as is everything.  Our ability to define and exchange ideas
> is part of the nature of the universe.  Get out of the cage which separates
> you from reality!  You are the one creating it.

That's right.  We create static patterns in response to Dynamic Quality.  I agree with that.  But we are NOT Dynamic Quality.   We respond to it, yes, but we are not 'it'.

> Yes, MOQ points to more than DQ, it also points to sq, because it is the
> metaphysics of Quality, not the metaphysics of dynamic quality.

Again a rare case where we agree.   The MOQ is as Pirsig writes - a logical absurdity.  A contradiction in terms.  

> What is prior to thought creates thought.  The sun cannot shine on itself.
> One cannot find anything in that way.  What we do is create, not approach
> something.  When one builds a house, one is not "approaching something".
> To think that one is approaching something is completely mad.  When I speak
> of Fear, do I destroy fear?  I don't think so, in fact I make it worse.

> Mark: Yes, exactly!  They are not the French Revolution, they are
> representations.  Words about mysticism are not mysticism, they are
> representations.  Don’t allow yourself to be caged by them!

That's right. I won't, which I why I practice Zen meditation.  But when I am on a philosophical discussion board, I respect that these cages are unescapable.   To pretend otherwise is a form of purity.  

This is confirmed by Pirsig where he writes:

"But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics are made of. Purity, identified, ceases to be purity. Objections to pollution are a form of pollution. The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life."

> David
> 
> Mark: No, the intellectual is derived from the mystical.  One can approach
> it by ignoring the intellectual, which wraps up the mystical such that you
> cannot see it.  The mystical is like a spider that is hiding in the
> elaborate web it has spun.  They are not two opposing forces.


Right, you constantly point to the source of all things.. including the MOQ. I get that.  But I am not here to discuss the source.  Discussing the source is like drinking through a straw.  I prefer to experience the source of all things, and discuss Metaphysics.  Metaphysics doesn't ignore the intellectual, it embraces its degeneracy yet has an entirely different value of its own..


> Words result from DQ.  Does that make any more sense to you?  Tell me,
> where do words come from?  Why do we use words?

We use words - not just to point to DQ - Although that is all you use them for.    This is the whole point of my original post.   Words point to more than just DQ.   They point to static quality patterns as well..

> Mark:  What you are doing is much more than convention, you are reciting at
> an altar.  I am using English, so I am using a convention.  I use words in
> their correct meaning, which is convention.  I agree with MOQ, that is
> convention.  You are the one creating anarchy, by taking this SQ stuff to
> some extreme.  Most of your existence is in the form of DQ.  Most of it you
> are not even aware of.  Think about that.

I cannot think about 'DQ', for I would find myself thinking about nothing in particular.  Dynamic Quality isn't thought! Dynamic Quality is before thought.   That is why we cannot talk bout it.  It's before talking.   I can experience DQ however.  I get that things come from DQ. But *ALL* of *my* experience is static quality not DQ.  DQ isn't mine any more than it is yours.  It is ugly to think that you own DQ and that it is you or me or any thing else.

> David professing from the mountain tops:
> "Thought is not a path to reality. It sets obstacles in that path because
> when you try to use thought to approach something that is prior to thought
> your thinking does not carry you toward that something. It carries you away
> from it. To define something is to subordinate it to a tangle of
> intellectual relationships. And when you do that you destroy real
> understanding." - Lila
> 
> Mark: Thanks for providing a quote in my favor!  At least you are beginning
> to understand where I am coming from.
> 
> However, I am interested in how you interpret "reality" in the statement
> above, perhaps you think it means something other than I do.

The intellect destroys *real* understanding for the ultimate reality is DQ.  This is what you shout at the mountain tops about Mark. 

"THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF STATIC QUALITY IS DYNAMIC QUALITY!!"

We can even shout it together…  But there is more to life than this..  There is intellectual quality which is created in response to DQ.  There is social quality which is created in response to DQ.  There is biological quality which is created in response to DQ.  There is inorganic quality which is created in response to DQ.

> Mark:  Here is the deal.  You are creating a cage by claiming that words
> relegate what they are describing to writings on a page.  I am providing
> you a key to get out of this cage, by telling you that words are just
> descriptions of something and not the thing in itself.
> 
> By way of example:  Light is described as either waves or particles.  Do
> you really think that light is a wave or a particle?  Of course it isn't,
> that is just a description for it!  Light is neither waves or particles.
> This form of description falls out of the math.  The math did not create
> light.

The light is inorganic quality.  Our intellectual descriptions describe this inorganic quality using maths.  The math attempts to 'represent' this inorganic quality.  Which comes first? The ideas or the objects?  This is where it gets complicated….

The ideas create the objects, but it is a good idea that the objects come first.  This is what I think you miss… It's the quality that comes first, then ideas and matter..

> Mark: No, you are conflating sq with DQ by making sq everything.  Is pride
> SQ?  If so, can you point to pride?  Of course you can't you can only point
> to the result of pride.

So everything subjective doesn't exist and is actually DQ?  What about the objective is that actually DQ too?  Yes of course you will say…

"THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF STATIC QUALITY IS DYNAMIC QUALITY!!"

There is more to the MOQ than this.  Rather than skip past them like you want to, the static patterns are still valuable.

> David:
> 
> Quality becomes DQ in Lila.  DQ is the source of the shadows. If you want
> to discuss DQ on a philosophical forum then these thoughts will take you
> away from DQ not toward it:
> 
> Mark: OK, Quality becomes DQ.  So then why call it the metaphysics of
> Quality, smarty pants?

Because we break up that Quality into a Metaphysics.  We break up undefined Quality into DQ and sq in the MOQ.   Why does Pirsig do this?  He does this so that he can put aside the notion that Quality should be left undefined.   That is, he wants to put aside the idea that quality should be left undefined and goes ahead and defines a static quality metaphysics full of definitions.. The way he puts it aside is by putting aside the whole concept of Dynamic Quality into a term called 'Dynamic Quality'.  Once he has acknowledged that it is the source of all things, he is then able to proceed on and talk about static things which are *not* Dynamic Quality.

That's why we call it the MOQ. Because both qualities exist in the MOQ not just undefined Quality as it did at the end of ZMM.

> Definitions only create a cage if you let them.  That is what Pirsig is
> saying.  You on the other hand are all for creating these cages by giving
> power to definitions.  Definitions are just words.  Words do not stand on
> their own since they require a reader to bring them to life.  Bringing
> words to life is DQ.  What results from this birth is SQ.


Words don't exist without a reader.  'Bringing words to life' is an intellectual or social or biological or mystical response to DQ…   The words are not DQ.  They are static *responses* to DQ. 

> Yes, have you ever heard something called rhetoric?  You are acting like
> this is some cardinal rule.  You say" "This is what Pirsig says, and by God
> he better stick by it!"  Hate to tell you this Pal, but if you said this to
> Pirsig, he would disavow you in a heartbeat.

I don't claim that you better stick to what Pirsig says.  I say that it is dishonest to claim that you *do* stick to what he says when it seems as though you do not.  If you claim to disagree with what Pirsig says, then I have little issue with anything you write.. But you seem to think that you are actually interpreting the two books and the MOQ as a whole correctly.  I disagree and I will keep providing quotes to prove you otherwise.  You are welcome to provide quotes if you think they dispute what I'm claiming... 

> Yes, we create static quality based on Pirsig's books, so what?  Why do you
> feel the need to justify what you say with a quote?  Is that supposed to
> mean that you understood the book, or that you just googled the words?  Of
> course we discuss the content of these books.  That is what I do.  Please
> explain what you mean by DQ flourishing.   Do we have the power to make DQ
> flourish?  This is an interesting concept.  I would like to hear more about
> this.

Because there is intellectual clarity found in justifying what I write with a quote.  If one does not show what they are claiming with quotes then who's to say I'm right?  If I say - Pirsig says xyz about the MOQ and don't provide proof that he says xyz then I might as well say he says "all televisions are green".  This is called intellectual value.  If you cannot see the importance of intellectual values such as proof, then you are in the wrong place.  This is a philosophical discussion board which discusses ideas not just points to DQ and just looks past intellectual value by constantly pointing to where all things come from..

> David, singing in the choir:
> "To the intellect the process of defining Quality has a compulsive quality
> of its own. It produces a certain excitement even though it leaves a
> hangover afterward, like too many cigarettes, or a party that has lasted
> too long. Or Lila last night. It isn't anything of lasting beauty; no joy
> forever. What would you call it? Degeneracy, he guessed. Writing a
> metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity."
> 
> Mark: What is with these verses dude?  Can't you think for yourself?  Are
> singing in a choir?  Did you bring those cannisters with smoke to spread
> about while you speak in tongues?

> Mark:  Mystic degeneracy?  When static quality is formed it is no longer
> mystical is it?  So how can this degenerate the mystical?    When a river
> forms a canyon, does the canyon degenerate the river?  Please, think about
> this.

The static is degenerate for it claims to represent DQ.  Pirsig gave Dynamic Quality a name..  That's degeneracy right there..  He even admits it…  He says that Dynamic Quality should not be named but goes ahead and names it.  This is the degeneracy of the intellect...

> Mark: I don’t need to, I agree with this.  Degeneracy results when one
> thinks that a definition is more than a definition.  Degeneracy results
> when one allows words to replace what they were created for.  You are the
> one who disagrees with this quote, buddy.

Hang on, degeneracy results when one thinks that a definition is more than a definition?  I agree with that definition but you think that definitions can capture DQ.  For instance you that think that I am DQ.  I can be defined.  I have a name David and can be described...  Yet you claim that I am DQ.  Everything I have ever done can be defined.  There is no more to me than these definitions.   This is confirmed by Pirsig where he writes:

"The MOQ says it[the self] is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality. " That's it.  There is no more to a person than that.  You are you're patterns Mark.  There is no more to you than that.

> DQ can be considered the source of shadows, while Quality is both the
> source and the shadow.  Remember that DQ and sq are manner in which to
> divide Quality.  Both together they become Quality.  Or perhaps you do not
> believe in the "first division".

Disagree - Quality - the same as DQ is the source of the shadows.   Pirsig knows that he is being degenerate by defining a static metaphysics.   This ruins the ultimately undefined nature of the universe… This is why he writes in Lila:

"'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity."


> The more I think about some things, the closer I get to DQ.  I am simply
> speaking from experience, not theoretically as you seem to be doing.  If
> you think that you can categorically tell me that I am wrong, then you are
> a God indeed.
> 
> What experience do you base your MOQ on?  Inquiring minds want to know.

This is a philosophical forum.  Philosophy, by definition, is a bunch of ideas.  If you don't want to talk about ideas, then I point you in the direction of a social club, or a mystic club.   Ideas are intellectual.  Metaphysics is intellectual. Metaphysical discussion boards discuss ideas.

> Mark:  I hate to break it to you, but MOQ has been espoused for at least
> 5,000 years and we do not have writings from before that.  Do you think
> what MOQ claims is something new?  You need to get more rounded with your
> reading.


The MOQ has been espoused originally by Pirsig.  It did not exist before Pirsig created it.  Remember the laws of gravity in ZMM.  Ideas before people thought of them, didn't exist.

> David:
> 
> The MOQ does not give you a way out.  By definition the MOQ is intellectual
> POV which does not take you towards DQ - it points you away from it.
> 
> Sorry, but you are wrong.  Do you think that Pirsig exists in SQ only?

Yes I do..  He is capable of responding to DQ for he is still alive, but all of what we call "Pirsig" is static quality biological, social and intellectual patterns capable of responding to DQ.

> Mark: They only capture reality into fixed meanings if you let them.  I
> think you are smarter than that.  If I describe the Grand Canyon to you, do
> you think I have captured the Grand Canyon?  This is effectively what you
> are saying.

Yes, I think you have captured the Grand Canyon intellectually.   This it what the intellect does.  It captures things independently of those things existence.

> David:
> 
> I don't agree to disagree.  This is a Philosophical forum created for the
> purpose of discussing philosophical disagreements.
> 
> Mark:  Heh, heh, OK then.  I was giving you a way out…

You were giving yourself a way out..  You don't seem interested in ideas.  You just want to continually say - the fundamental nature of static quality is dynamic quality.  End of story.. what's to talk about?   I want to talk about the static patterns of the MOQ as this is what is valuable to do - intellectually.  Interesting to see if you change your tune...

Thanks Mark,

-David.