[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,

>>> Mark: We get into an interesting situation here if this is what is said.
>>> Yes, "we all know what is good", we can say there is truth to such a
>>> statement.  If however we relegate truth to high quality patterns and say
>>> that such a depiction is good we end up with a paradox.  There is no way
>> to
>>> separate truth from good, or Truth from Quality.  They become exactly the
>>> same thing.
>> 
>> Logically, yes, you're right.  But Quality is before logic.  If you keep
>> trying to subordinate Good to try and understand it intellectually, you
>> will never do so because it is before your ideas about it.. Quality is
>> direct experience itself, before Mark or anything else for that matter..
>> The only way you can agree with this is by *seeing* the harmony created by
>> placing quality first.. If you don't do that, then you will never agree or
>> understand.
> 
> Mark:  What do you mean Quality is before logic?  As far as I can tell,
> Quality is not some thing.   Quality is where it happens.  As I remember,
> Quality is made of two parts, DQ and SQ.  If Quality = DQ, then where does
> SQ come from?  

sq comes from DQ.

> If instead Quality = DQ and SQ = SQ, then what is DQ + SQ.
> Do we have a name for this?

Yes, post Lila we can say that Quality is DQ + SQ.

Here is the complete Pirsig quote:

"When ZMM was written there was no division between Dynamic Quality and static quality and the term Quality then meant what is now meant by Dynamic Quality.  Today I tend to think of Quality as covering both Dynamic and static quality.  So far no problems have arisen with this confusion of terms but if they do arise I would guess that they could be eliminated by refraining from using the term Quality alone." [Pirsig to Turner, November 2005] 

>  If Pirsig said that DQ is Quality (ZAMM) in
> 2005, what happened between 1992 and 2005?  Was it not the same thing in
> that period?  Pirsig is trying to explain a difficult idea.  He is trying
> to make it easy on us.  I already know what Quality was in the '70s.  I
> read all about it.  Please do not provide quotes as proof of anything until
> you understand DQ and Quality.
> 
> David, I am not sure what you mean by direct experience.  Experience is
> something we create in response to that outside.  There is no "Experience"
> floating around all by itself.  Maybe you are using the term experience in
> a manner I am not used to.  Is there experience before we experience it?
> When we say "I experienced a freezing lake", this means that our bodies
> got cold when we jumped in the lake.  Your "experience" is something else
> all together, as far as I can tell.  Please explain what you mean by
> "direct experience".

"Experience is something we create in response to that outside" -   If by 'outside' you mean DQ, then I agree. Pure experience is DQ.  If I communicate to you what I mean by it then I will be defining DQ and by definition this is not something you can do..  All 'definitions' of DQ are sq. In Lila Pirsig uses a few analogies of DQ such as being whacked on the head and feeling 'born again' or jumping off a hot stove and then realising the stove was hot..  But these things are not DQ..

>>> The solution is to say that , "yes, they are exactly the same thing".  In
>>> this way the dichotomy presented by Pirsig is a false one.  He creates an
>>> enemy of truth, and does not replace it with anything different.  I have
>> no
>>> problem with this result, since it is we who create distinctions where no
>>> distinctions exist.  Such distinctions are made simply for rhetorical
>>> purposes and fall apart on logical examination.
>> 
>> I disagree.   Pirsig does replace truth with something different.  He
>> replaces truth with Quality.  Once one does this, things become fabulously
>> more coherent than they previously were..
> 
> No, David, Truth and Quality are two different conceptual beginings.  We
> cannot replace one with the other.  When somebody is coming from the
> paradigm of Quality he can place Truth within Quality.  If somebody is
> coming from the Truth perspective, he can place Quality within truth.  To
> somebody embedded in Truth, Quality is just an attribute.  The question is,
> which is the better perspective for you?  I choose Quality.

I agree.. What I mean to say is that Pirsig replaces truth with quality in the metaphysical structure of things.  Quality first, truth second..

>> I disagree.  It is better to create two 'universes' of Quality than one.
>> It is better to say that Dynamic Quality is before all things and cannot
>> be defined, while all our definitions and attempted definitions of DQ are
>> sq.  The reason why it is better to create these two universes is because
>> of how beautifully such a description describes our experience.  The
>> emphasis here is on the beauty.  Where does that beauty come from? It is
>> not mine any more than it is yours.  It is before all things.. It comes
>> from DQ, like all things..
>> 
> David, I am not sure what you mean by "defined".  When you say that DQ is
> before all things, that IS a definition.  We have to define things in order
> to talk about them.  If it is undefined then it could be before, after,
> between, above, below, and all of the above all at the same time.  You are
> defining DQ specifically as being before all things.  If it were undefined
> you would not say that.

That's right. We cannot help but ruin the undefined source of all things by chattering about and existing statically. 

> Definitions are simply used to have a conversation.  There is nothing
> inherently evil about definitions.  In fact they are very useful.  What
> Pirsig says is to not confuse the definition with the thing itself.  Do you
> confuse a book about the French Revolution with the actual French
> Revolution.

Right. I agree with this.

> With SQ (some thing) coming after DQ (no thing), you are saying that
> something comes from nothing.  I am fine with this and ask you, how do you
> propose this happens?

If something did not come from nothing then new things would never be created.  Nothing has to be the starting point or else you haven't found the starting point..

"Since experience is the starting point, it doesn’t arise from a lower level of no experience. Logically speaking, a starting point that arises from something else is no longer a starting point." - Lila's Child.

> More on your thoughtful responses, tomorrow.

I look forward to it.

Thanks Mark,

-David.