[MD] Is experience just DQ?

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone,

Hi David

Since you said you considered this to be one of your best posts, I've
answered it.

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:37 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> >>>> I've removed parts of this thread in which you were being "downright
> rude at times, even vulgar".. or where we weren't discussing the
> intellectual aspects of the MOQ.  For my part in this devolution I
> apologise.. If you don't mind I'd like to keep our conversation civilised
> and hopefully away from social bickering or biological rudeness..
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> Whatever you think I am, or wish me to be, I am.
> >>
> >> But that's where you're wrong. How easy life would be if it would
> require a simple change in mind to change our reality.  If only it would
> bend to our whims.. Such an easy life.
> >
> > Dan:
> > That is not what I said though, now is it. I've just re-read what I
> > wrote and there is nothing simple about it. In fact, due to
> > constraints placed upon us by culture there are very few who are able
> > to break free. They insist that the world exists independently, that
> > no matter what they think, it is forever separate from them.
> >
> > But it isn't.
>
> Right - so our ideas are based in our culture and a simple change of mind
> will clearly not change our reality?
>

 Dan:
Again, it has very little to do with 'simple' so I take it you are
misjudging my words here.


>
> >
> >>
> >> But of course this isn't the case.  You aren't whatever I think you
> are.  You are a person with your own values.  I can guess and try and
> understand this Dan and the values he holds and to try and put myself in
> his shoes to see the quality of what he is saying..   But these values I
> try aren't all there is to Dan.. Goodness - there must be millions of
> values you hold that I have no idea about.. I can only discern a rough idea
> of what you see as valuable by the words you use and pictures you paint
> here..
> >
> > Dan:
> > I understand this is confusing. And I realize your desire is to
> > experience a real world that exists apart from you. But if there is no
> > reality apart from the human imagination as Robert Pirsig wrote then
> > it is clear the world including me and you exists only in the
> > imagination. If you realized the import of this you would not be
> > clinging so tightly to what you know to be true. You would change your
> > attitude and watch as the world changed with it.
> >
> > If you take one thing at all out of this discussion, take that.
>
> In the Copleston annotations - Pirsig has explicitly denied the
> fundamental reality of the world being the human imagination or an idea…
>
> "Since Bradley was always classified as an idealist, it did not seem
> important to investigate him thoroughly because the MOQ rejects the
> metaphysical assertion that the fundamental reality of the world is idea."
> - Copleston article.
>

Dan:
I am not saying ideas are fundamental nor does Robert Pirsig when he says
nothing exists outside the human imagination. If he had, then he would
indeed be contradicting himself. I think you are jumping to incorrect
conclusions.


>
>
> >
> >>
> >>>>>> I think we cannot have a discussion and mutual learning about the
> MOQ if we don't care for the person we are conversing with or care for what
> they are saying.  Otherwise you might as well just be talking to a wall..
> While I'm putting great effort into understanding where you're coming from,
> it's disheartening to see you take such a flippant attitude towards my
> thoughts and words..  You seem to see contradiction in what I'm saying but
> rarely ask any questions to see why I might think the way I do..
>  Alternatively I'm continually asking you questions… I'm also continually
> stating what I think you're saying so that you can tell me where I'm wrong
> and I can try and learn from that..  You don't seem much keen in trying to
> understand what I'm saying either…
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> As I already said, I understand what you are saying. I don't have to
> >>>>> try. You may not like that answer, but as I also said, liking has
> >>>>> nothing to do with it. Actually, I have asked you a number of
> >>>>> questions but you never seem to get around to answering them in any
> >>>>> coherent manner.
> >>>>
> >>>> How can you say you understand what I write in one sentence, then the
> next you go on to say that I'm not answering questions in a coherent
> manner?  Everyones thoughts have coherence if you understand where they are
> coming from.. If you still see incoherence in what I write then you still
> musn't understand what I am saying..
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> I ask questions in an effort to help you see what you are saying. It
> >>> has been my experience that not everyone is able to express themselves
> >>> in a coherent manner. Whether they are able to think that way is
> >>> beyond the scope of my knowing.
> >>
> >> I ask questions because I'm genuinely trying to understand what you
> write. If it doesn't cohere with what I understand then i'll continue to
> ask questions until it does.
> >>
> >> It seems from what you wrote above that you aren't here to learn but to
> teach.  To 'show' me how my thoughts don't match with yours. No openness to
> the possibility of something better… But from what you write below perhaps
> this attitude was a momentary thing confined to just this response?
> >
> > Dan:
> > As I said, I am whatever you think I am or what you wish me to be.
> >
> > I have nothing to teach. What i attempt to show you by asking
> > questions is how your words do not comport to the MOQ. Either you see
> > that or you don't. I have no control over your thoughts.
> >
> > Still, I have learned many things from you. Why is it so difficult for
> > you to learn from me? Is what you know really so profound that you
> > cannot let go of it for something better?
>
> The fact that you say you have nothing to teach is wrong.   How would you
> or I know if we have no values to give to one another? We don't we can only
> learn that by discussing things here..
>

Dan:
I will reiterate that I am not a teacher nor do I have anything to teach.
If anyone learns something from my words here it is by their doing, not
mine. We've all supposedly read the same material. Anything I write
pertains to that which has been described by the MOQ.


>
> Anyways - apart form that I hope that by asking questions we can learn
> from one another.. I'll keep asking these questions until what you say has
> value.. I don't dismiss what you write and try and show you how what I
> think is better outright…  I'm open to your ideas being better than mine..
>  In fact I keep asking questions until I can see beauty in your ideas and
> we can find agreement and understanding of each others values..
>

Dan:

Again, I am not pushing my ideas here. I take it we are discussing the MOQ.
Those are the ideas I am exploring.


>
> >
> >>
> >>>>>>>> Because matter is a part of experience.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> The idea of matter emerges from experience. With statements like
> this
> >>>>>>> you are making matter primary.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As I've stated before Pirsig clearly uses the words 'experience'
> and 'primary experience' differently.  Matter is not a part of primary
> experience but it is still a part of experience. This makes a clear
> distinction between matter being a part of DQ(it isn't) yet matter is still
> a part of that static quality thing we call experience...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> No, he doesn't. This is a misunderstanding on your part. I've posted
> >>>>> this quote before but it is worth repeating:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "In a subject-object metaphysics, this experience is between a
> >>>>> preexisting object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no
> >>>>> pre-existing subject or object. Experience and Dynamic Quality become
> >>>>> synonymous. Change is probably the first concept emerging from this
> >>>>> Dynamic experience. Time is a primitive intellectual index of this
> >>>>> change. Substance was postulated by Aristotle as that which does not
> >>>>> change. Scientific “matter” is derived from the concept of substance.
> >>>>> Subjects and objects are intellectual terms referring to matter and
> >>>>> nonmatter. So in the MOQ experience comes first, everything else
> comes
> >>>>> later. This is pure empiricism, as opposed to scientific empiricism,
> >>>>> which, with its pre-existing subjects and objects, is not really so
> >>>>> pure. I hope this explains what is said above, “In the MOQ time is
> >>>>> dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter is a
> deduction
> >>>>> from experience.” [Robert Pirsig, Lila's Child]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan comments:
> >>>>> Experience comes first. Not primary experience. Experience. With your
> >>>>> insistence that we experience static patterns you are putting the
> >>>>> patterns first. You are saying static patterns are 'out there'
> waiting
> >>>>> for us to experience them. As long as you insist on this notion, you
> >>>>> will never grasp this very important fundamental of the MOQ.
> >>>>
> >>>> Right. Well I do get this 'important fundamental' of the MOQ and yet
> I still insist on there being a difference between 'experience being
> synonymous with DQ' and experience of sq…
> >>>>
> >>>> As Pirsig shows … it's also good to say that we experience static
> quality..
> >>>>
> >>>> "But with a Metaphysics of Quality the empirical experience is not an
> experience of 'objects.' It's an experience of value patterns produced by a
> number of sources, not just inorganic patterns. " - Lila.
> >>>>
> >>>> As I keep explaining - I don't deny the strength of your argument
> stop claiming that I do! Why deny that I see the strength of your argument
> when I *continually* say the opposite? I don't understand!!
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> When you say you insist that we experience static quality, you are in
> >>> effect saying you insist that static patterns are primary. If you read
> >>> the quote you offered, you will see Robert Pirsig is using the term
> >>> 'experience' in the manner of a subject experiencing value patterns
> >>> instead of objects. He is setting the table for his pure empiricism
> >>> here.
> >>
> >> That's right. I do insist that static patterns are primary.  Remember
> those two perspective of the MOQ that Pirsig, Ant and I talk about?
> >
> > Dan:
> > If there is a perspective from the Buddha's point of view there would
> > be no intellectual distinctions to be made. We would not be having
> > this discussion.
>
> Right, so we are (generally) having this discussion from the other point
> of view.. The one where we talk distinctions..
>

Dan:
That does not mean we should ignore the MOQ, however. In the MOQ, Dynamic
Quality is primary, not static quality.


>
> >
> >> Patterns are primary when we talk about patterns..  When we talk about
> patterns we assume that they are real.  Of course this is wrong but we
> cannot help but use these minds of ours and pretend that there are static
> things out there which require our understanding…
> >>
> >> Of course; patterns aren't primary and so there is an alternative 'not
> this, not that' perspective of DQ.  From such a perspective it doesn't
> matter whether we experience static quality, Dynamic Quality or anything
> else because all of this is intellectual distinction which is not it..
> >
> > Dan:
> > Experience is primary in the MOQ. Static quality patterns emerge from
> > experience.
> >
>
> Static quality patterns are a part of experience.  It is more accurate to
> say that static patterns are part of experience than some static quality
> experiences other static quality.  However both are not wrong. Ultimately
> both are wrong as static quality distinctions don't really exist but so far
> as living these static lives of ours go - they exist and are real.
>

Dan:
Static quality patterns are memories of experience. There is no 'ultimate'
reality.



>
> >
> >>
> >> That's why I say that experience includes DQ and sq. Because any talk
> of 'experience' is going to be from this sq perspective where there is an
> important distinction between sq and DQ - between the defined and the
> undefined.
> >>
> >>>> I see the strength of saying that experience is DQ - But my point is
> that there is strength in saying that experience is sq as well...
> >
> > Dan:
> > Yes you've explained that many times. But I see yours as a low quality
> > explanation inasmuch as experience and Dynamic Quality become
> > synonymous in the MOQ.
>
> Inasmuch as experience is a third category of the MOQ?
>

Dan:
No, of course not. If Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous in
the MOQ then how can experience be a third category?


>
> >
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> "Dynamic Quality is good and precedes static improvement. It is the
> source of experience."
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> I think in subsequent writings he has moved away from stating Dynamic
> >>> Quality is always positive, or good. There is a quote in Lila's Child
> >>> where he says it is better to say Dynamic Quality is not this, not
> >>> that.
> >>
> >> I agree.. But the key part of this sentence for me is that "DQ is the
> source of experience."  What does Pirsig mean when he says this?  He seems
> to use the term experience here as synonymous with sq.
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > I think that is why it is valuable to have some of his subsequent
> > writings to further illuminate what he is saying in Lila and ZMM. I
> > cannot answer for him, of course, but I would say he is attempting to
> > build his metaphysics in a way that others can understand. Here, he is
> > using the term 'experience' in the way a subject will experience the
> > world.
> >
> > That is precisely what you continue to do when you insist we
> > experience static quality. But if we are to form a better
> > understanding of the MOQ we need to move away from that notion and use
> > experience as becoming synonymous with Dynamic Quality. Otherwise all
> > we are doing is swirling around old tea.
>
> I disagree.  As I've said it is more accurate to say that static quality
> is a part of experience than some such a static quality experiencing other
> static quality.
>

Dan:
You are saying static quality patterns are primary.


>
> >>>>> Now, it may well be that Robert Pirsig uses qualifiers like 'primary'
> >>>>> and 'direct' in Lila but it must be remembered he wrote that novel to
> >>>>> introduce the MOQ. He needed those qualifiers to explicate his
> >>>>> metaphysics in ways others could understand. Once we form a decent
> >>>>> understanding with the MOQ, we can see that there is no need for
> >>>>> qualifiers so far as experience in the MOQ.
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't forget the 'pure' qualifier… Is static quality a part of
> experience?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that it is.. I think that as many Pirsig quotes show.. static
> quality is a part of experience.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> As a memory of experience, yes. As a snap shot of experience, yes. As
> >>> experience? No.
> >>
> >> And I disagree as do many Pirsig quotes which contradict your statement
> above.. And don't get me wrong.. I agree with you that ultimately all we
> experience and all that is included in experience is DQ..
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > Obviously you do not agree with me as I have never said experience is
> > DQ. Ever. Nor have I ever said anything about ultimately experiencing
> > anything. Those are your words, not mine. So you are agreeing with
> > yourself here, not me.
>
> Right. It appears your view is that experience is in another category of
> its own which (like DQ) cannot defined.  It isn't DQ and it isn't sq.. It's
> experience..  Would that be a more accurate depiction?
>

Dan:
In the MOQ, experience becomes synonymous with Dynamic Quality.


>
> >>>>>>> Second, you say what is not experienced doesn't exist. This
> statement
> >>>>>>> doesn't make a lot of sense either. Where did you get this from? I
> >>>>>>> don't think it is anything that Robert Pirsig has said. This seems
> >>>>>>> like pure solipsism.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "The Metaphysics of Quality says pure experience is value.
> Experience which is not valued is not experienced. The two are the same.
> This is where value fits. Value is not at the tail-end of a series of
> superficial scientific deductions that puts it somewhere in a mysterious
> undetermined location in the cortex of the brain. Value is at the very
> front of the empirical procession." - Lila
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> " In the MOQ, nothing exists prior to the observation. The
> observation creates the intellectual patterns called “observed” and
> “observer.” Think about it. How could a subject and object exist in a world
> where there are no observations?" - LC
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Pure empiricism Dan.  If you don't experience(value) it - it
> doesn't exist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> Well, what you are doing here is turning things around and reading
> >>>>> this from the perspective of value existing in the world and just
> >>>>> waiting for someone to experience it. Note this sentence:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Experience which is not valued is not experienced."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> See, what he is saying is if experience is value, then what is not
> >>>>> valued isn't experienced. That isn't to say what isn't experienced
> >>>>> doesn't exist. Plenty of things we never experience exist.
> >>>>
> >>>> You say this and I hear it but… What exists Dan? Please tell me. What
> actually exists? Only objects? Only ideas? What are they? What exists?
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> The human imagination.
> >>
> >> This is just as much idealism as the day I heard it..
> >>
> >> What is the human imagination?
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > If you grasp this your whole comfortable world is going to fall apart.
> > So I don't blame you for fighting it so vehemently.
>
> That would be fine if I was anti-idealism.  But I'm not. I think the MOQ
> offers a broader perspective than idealism and includes its strengths.. '
>
> In a world of idealism - all there is - is ideas.. If we want things to
> change - we just have to change our mind… If I want this computer in front
> of me to disappear - I just have to change my mind.. If I want everyone to
> understand the MOQ - I just have to change my mind..
>
> But that's clearly is not the case..  And to this problem Idealism has no
> answer..
>
> But there is no escape from Idealism… Everything you have ever heard or
> read is an idea - including what I wrote above and including everything
> that has ever been written about everything ever..
>
> But what the MOQ does is improve our perspective and solve this
> traditional conflict between Materialism and Idealism -  The solution is -
> as I keep asking you Dan - what is an idea?!
>

Dan:
It appears you are conflating idealism with the whole of the MOQ here. Even
though nothing exists outside the human imagination that doesn't mean
everything is an idea.


>
>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan comments:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Illusory and imaginary are seen as synonymous.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> These *different* words both have important *different*
> philosophical connotations as I describe above.   Synonyms don't have
> exactly the same meaning - otherwise we wouldn't have use for the thesaurus
> with which you've quoted from above..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now can you please speak to my point above about this
> important difference between an illusion(which is mystical) and
> imagination(which is intellectual)?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>> These are both intellectual terms which are seen as
> synonymous. I
> >>>>>>>>>>> already answered this question. No one is saying synonyms are
> exact in
> >>>>>>>>>>> their meaning but they are close enough to comport to one
> another.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, why are there synonyms at all?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, some synonyms are close - others not so much.  It depends
> on their context which synonyms apply and which don't.  All synonyms have
> different definitions. Some synonyms can mean quite different things
> depending on both their definition and their context.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There is an important distinction between imagination and
> illusion..  By your own recognition below - a 'Myriad' of books have been
> written on this subject - so they must at least be different no?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>> The books? Or the distinctions? What is the important distinction
> >>>>>>>>> between imagination and illusion?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The important distinction is that we can imagine things that are
> real (not illusions) and we can imagine things which look real but are not
> (illusion).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> imagine
> >>>>>>> 1. to form a mental image of (something not actually present to
> the senses).
> >>>>>>> 2. to think, believe, or fancy: He imagined the house was haunted.
> >>>>>>> 3. to assume; suppose: I imagine they'll be here soon.
> >>>>>>> 4. to conjecture; guess: I cannot imagine what you mean.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan comments:
> >>>>>>> How does a person imagine things that are real? Don't you mean
> things
> >>>>>>> we assume are real? Things we believe are real? Things we suppose
> are
> >>>>>>> real?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I cannot imagine anyone imagining anything real. :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Right. I'd agree with that. And that's why we can't reach an
> agreement in this part of the discussion here because I *can* imagine
> someone imagining something real.  Like you on the other side of these
> words I write…  I can imagine you.. You exist don't you?  You're real? It
> all depends on what you call 'real' doesn't it?  As supported by the MOQ -
> I think that something is real if it is good to think so. Of course it's
> good to imagine that you exist Dan - so you're real.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> You have no idea if I am real. I am not even sure if I am real. You
> >>>>> may well imagine me, imagine my wants, my likes, my dislikes... but
> >>>>> all that is imaginary. It isn't me, believe it or not.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I do know that you're real.. You're as real as rocks.. I don't
> imagine your wants, your likes, your dislikes.  You tell me them.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> As I said, whatever you think I am, I am. I exist in your imagination.
> >>
> >> I like your idealism, but I think that the MOQ provides a better
> understanding of the world.
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > It isn't my idealism. Philosophical idealism is part and parcel of the
> MOQ.
>
> Exactly - idealism surrounded by a greater perspective of quality.
>  Quality is fundamental - not ideas or the human imagination.
>

Dan:
Well, no. That isn't what I meant. In the MOQ, inorganic and biological
patterns correspond to physical materialism while social and intellectual
patterns correspond to philosophic idealism. In the MOQ, Dynamic Quality is
primary. Static quality emerges from experience.


>
>
> >
> >>
> >> As stated from the beginning.. How easy life would be if you really did
> just change when I changed my mind!
> >
> > Dan:
> > But I do! Your idea of me changes with your idea of me changing.
> > That's all you have. That's all any of us have. We do not possess
> > anyone, not even those closest to us. They exist in our imaginations.
> >
> > There is nothing easy about this, however. It is probably one of the
> > most difficult obstacles to overcome. In a very real way it is
> > sacrificing oneself.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by sacrificing oneself here..   But we have
> more than our 'ideas' of each other.. People actually exist behind these
> ideas of ours.. The tricky thing - to understand others - is to
>


Dan:
Static quality patterns exist, yes. I don't know as I have ever said they
did not.


>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But yet, you say these things aren't you.. I don't see how they're
> not.  Without your values the static quality Dan doesn't exist.. There is
> no Dan beyond these static values.
> >>>>
> >>>> "The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a “self” that
> is independent of inorganic, biological, social or intellectual patterns.
> There is no “self” that contains these patterns. These patterns contain the
> self. This denial agrees with both religious mysticism and scientific
> knowledge. In Zen, there is reference to “big self” and “small self.” Small
> self is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality." - LC
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> Exactly! 'I' exist as a collection of static patterns in the human
> >>> imagination. There is no real 'self' here that exists independently.
> >>
> >> Uhhh. This quote doesn't say that.
> >
> > Dan:
> > Uhhh. Really. Then you need to dig deeper. Stretch for it. Think.
>
> I see this quote about the fact that any 'Dan' which exists does not
> include DQ.


Dan:
'Dan' emerges from Dynamic Quality.


> But if you want to say that this quote is about how all patterns are ideas
> - sure.. What though is an idea? It is a static pattern of intellectual
> value.
>

Dan:
All patterns are not ideas.


>
>
> >
> >> It actually says that the self is a collection of static patterns.
>  This is an idea yes. But as I ask... What is an idea?
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > You know what an idea is. Don't be silly. We can spend our lives
> > playing goofy word games or we can move beyond that to what is really
> > important.
>
> Right - like answering important philosophical questions about what an
> idea is..  Idea's are composed of something.. That thing we call Quality….
> Quality is more fundamental than ideas.. That's why when we change our
> minds this doesn't simply change our reality…
>

Dan:
You seem to be saying Quality is a thing, an object. It isn't. In the MOQ,
ideas emerge from Dynamic Quality but that doesn't mean a subject
experiencing objects that are immutable. In the MOQ, patterns are
intertwined, which means what we think shapes our reality.


>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> What is the standard by which you judge what is 'real' and what
> isn't if it isn't Quality?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> Well, if everything is Quality then by your standards everything is
> real.
> >>>>
> >>>> Exactly!! Please continue to take my thoughts further like this!
> >>>>
> >>>> So that's exactly right!  Everything *is* real. Even bad ideas like
> unicorns and gremlins. They exist and are real! They don't exist
> inorganically or biologically, they exist culturally in myths and fables..
> If you think of something - it exists! It's real. You experienced it as a
> thought.. Thoughts are just as much a part of experience as everything
> else..  Some thoughts only exist as thoughts.  Other thoughts represent
> real things.. Like Metaphysics for example.. That tries to represent our
> experience.  In fact *All* of experience not just ours..  This experience
> includes DQ along with sq and all of its levels.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> You seem to be confusing the human imagination with that which is real
> >>> and verifiable.
> >>
> >> Yet this is exactly what you have continually said to me.  That the
> only thing which exists and is real is the human imagination?
> >
> > Dan:
> > "The world has no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination."
> >
> > But that doesn't mean unicorns and fairies and God and gremlins are real.
>
> If the world has no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination how
> do unicorns and fairies and Gods and gremlins not exist?


Dan:
I didn't say they don't exist. They do. They exist in the human
imagination. They are not real, however. Or perhaps they are... maybe it
depends on the definition of the term 'real' one uses.



>   It seems your definition of 'existence' is that which physically
> exists..   So are you a materialist or an idealist?  How do you reconcile
> these two views?
>

Dan:
I think I have already stated that. And again, there is no use in
attempting to box me into a category in the hopes you'll understand me.


>
> What is ultimately real? What ultimately exists? Objects, Ideas or Quality?
>

Dan:
To the best of my knowledge there is no ultimate reality. You seem to be
using the terms 'exist' and 'real' as interchangeable.


>
> Somehow you agree with me that Quality is what ultimately exists - it
> permeates everything you write - yet you never agree with me when I ask you
> about it.
>

Dan:
I don't believe I ever said Quality is what ultimately exists, no. So of
course I wouldn't agree with you.


>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does 'existence' mean to you Dan?  What separates
> something 'existing' from something imagined?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a very deep and challenging question, one which I
> haven't the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> proper time to go into at this time. I would venture to say,
> however,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that if, as Phaedrus says, nothing exists outside of the
> human
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> imagination, then there can be no separation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is the heart of our disagreement..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because alternatively - I've got a very simple answer that I
> don't find challenging..  Quality is what separates something existing from
> something imagined.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Whole careers have been spent attempting to answer this
> question.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Myriad books have been written on the subject. On the surface,
> it
> >>>>>>>>>>> seems very simple, sure. But just saying it doesn't make it
> so. I
> >>>>>>>>>>> would suggest a bit of reading on this but you seem adverse to
> such
> >>>>>>>>>>> things. So I won't.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "When the solution is simple, God is answering" - Albert
> Einstein.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Please tell me where I am wrong that Quality is what separates
> something existing from something imagined?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>> "The world has no existence whatsoever outside the human
> imagination." [ZMM]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The world. Does he mention quality here? Quality is what
> separates something existing from something imagined.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please tell me what the human imagination is… I'm interested to
> see what you actually think that it is and why it is so fundamental -
> before even quality itself(awful thought)?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> Obviously if I go along with Robert Pirsig on this, human
> imagination
> >>>>>>> is everything. If you do not go along with him on it, then you must
> >>>>>>> believe there is that which exists apart from human imagination. I
> >>>>>>> guess I have to ask, how would we know that? I mean, assuming we
> are
> >>>>>>> all human beings here?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How do I know that Quality exists outside of human imagination? By
> the harmony such a perspective produces.  Again - I've shown you Pirsig
> quotes which say exactly this..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> You've shown me quotes which you interpret to say exactly this. If
> >>>>> that were true, then Robert Pirsig would be contradicting himself
> >>>>> repeatedly. I do not believe that is the case. Rather, it seems clear
> >>>>> you are misinterpreting the quotes.
> >>>>
> >>>> I disagree.. To prove a point I can produce more quotes where Pirsig
> says that Quality exists *before* our thoughts about it…
> >>>>
> >>>> "And finally: Phadrus, following a path that to his knowledge had
> never been taken before in the history of Western thought, went straight
> between the horns of the subjectivity-objectivity dilemma and said Quality
> is neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter. It is a third entity
> which is independent of the two." - RMP in ZMM
> >>>>
> >>>> "..the MOQ rejects the metaphysical assertion that the fundamental
> reality of the world is idea." - RMP in Copleston comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> "It is this harmony, this beauty, that is at the center of it all...
> It is the quest of this special classic beauty, the sense of harmony of the
> cosmos, which makes us choose the facts most fitting to contribute to this
> harmony." - RMP in McWatt PhD.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I'm not misinterpreting RMP quotes.. It does indeed have more
> harmony to say that Quality exists and is fundamental rather than just 'the
> human imagination'..
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> Well, you seem to be twisting the argument here. No one ever denied
> >>> that Quality exists. But if it exists separate from the human
> >>> imagination, how would we know of it? In the first quote, he is
> >>> disemboweling the idea that the world is made up of subjects and
> >>> objects. In the second quote, he is saying the fundamental reality of
> >>> the world isn't ideas. Ideas emerge from Dynamic Quality. In the third
> >>> quote he is saying harmony marks the Quality of  the world.
> >>
> >> Right.. It is this harmony which is evidence that it exists before the
> human imagination.
> >
> > Dan:
> > No, it is disharmony.
>
> Disharmony marks the Quality of the world?
>

Dan:
No, disharmony marks your comment here. If experience comes first in the
MOQ, and nothing exists outside the human imagination, how can it be
harmonious to offer contradictory statements?


>
> >
> >>
> >> I'll repeat.. I don't deny that the idea that Quality is before the
> human imagination is itself an idea.. But how do we decide which ideas are
> true and which are false? The answer- by the Quality and haromy they
> produce..  The ultimate reality isn't the idea but the quality of it.
> It's good to say that Quality is before the human imagination because of
> the better perspective such an outlook provides. Therefore it's true. See?
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > How is it better to confuse the issue?
>
> Exactly - so saying things like ideas are fundamental (and not Quality) is
> confusing.


Dan:
Well, yes it is. And that is why I never  said it.


>  A better, more beautiful way to see things is that Quality is fundamental
> - That ideas are static patterns of intellectual quality and matter is
> static patterns of inorganic and biological quality and that when we are
> talking about which is more fundamental( matter or ideas) we do so based on
> what is good at the time.. Because these things do not exist in some kind
> of void on their own - but exist only because they are quality things
> themselves..
>

Dan:
I have never said anything different. Static quality emerges from Dynamic
Quality.


>
> >>> If Quality is fundamental and not a part of the human imagination then
> >>> we can never be party to the harmony it brings. In fact, it is perhaps
> >>> better to say that Quality gives rise to the human imagination, which
> >>> is perhaps what you are trying to say. But it does not exist apart
> >>> from it. It is it.
> >>
> >> I never said Quality wasn't a part of the human imagination!
> >
> > Dan:
> > So I take it your definition of separate and apart are different than
> > the dictionary definition. The whole point of this inquiry is in
> > regard to your statement that something exists apart from the human
> > imagination. Now you seem to be denying you ever made such a
> > statement.
>
> Quality exists outside the human imagination.  Sure, this is an idea - but
> what is an idea? An idea is an of intellectual pattern of VALUE.  Quality
> is more fundamental than ideas..
>

Dan:
So Quality exists outside the human imagination but is a part of it? But
how would we know Quality exists outside our imaginations? I agree it is an
idea, but don't ideas need some kind of support to be of value? I could say
little green men in funky silver suits exist outside the human imagination.
That is an idea too. But is it a high quality idea?


>
> >
> >> You continually over and over again tell me that I'm saying this but I
> never have and never will..
> >
> > Dan:
> > I am not into games, much. And this smacks of game-playing.
> >
> >> Quality creates the human imagination in its image. It cannot create
> the human imagination without using part of itself to do so..It has no
> other building blocks! And as stated previously the idea that Quality
> exists before the human imagination is itself an idea. But what is an idea!
> >
> > Dan:
> > I am not sure what to say to this.
>
> Please answer my question - if (as you've said previously) ideas are all
> that exist - what is an idea? Does it exist in a void all on its own? If so
> - how do you explain the fact that when I imagine the colour changes of the
> computer in front of me but it doesn't actually change in colour? Idealists
> have no response to this.
>
> The MOQ can.  The MOQ explains that while everything is an idea the reason
> why the computer in front of me doesn't change in colour is because it is a
> *good* idea to think that it exists before I think about it.. It is a
> *good* idea to think that a computer is made up of inorganic patterns of
> value. It is also a *good* idea to think that ideas themselves are
> intellectual patterns of value.  All is Quality.. What is ultimate - isn't
> the fact that everything is an idea but what is ultimate is that which
> creates everything - it is Quality.
>

Dan:
You seem to be saying your idea of the computer keeps the computer in
place. If that is so, then wouldn't changing your idea of the computer
change the computer? Yet you say it doesn't change color. The reason it
doesn't change color is because you know it won't change color. All your
wishing in the world will not change that.

Think of this: in Lila, Robert Pirsig talks about a green sun and how he
had never seen such a thing. But then he read a book on yachting and it
basically told him to go and look for it. So he did. And there it was!
Right there in the sky, green for all to see!


>
> >
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Quality is what exists outside the human imagination.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that? Isn't this pure conjecture? If Quality
> exists
> >>>>>>>>>>> outside the human imagination, how can anyone know of it? Yet
> everyone
> >>>>>>>>>>> knows what Quality is.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You seem to answer your own question here.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>> Really? And how is that? Or are you just playing?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not playing, I was confused actually.. Your last sentence 'Yet
> everyone knows what Quality is' answers the previous three questions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> Well, yes, it answers it from the MOQ point of view. If everyone
> knows
> >>>>>>> what Quality is, how can it exist outside the human imagination?
> Are
> >>>>>>> you calling us all monkeys? I know Marsha is a fox but that is
> beside
> >>>>>>> the point. :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, as I explained your logic is wrong..  You're stating that just
> because x is before y then y must be separate from - and can exist without
> x.   But this doesn't logically have to be the case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> I am not saying anything of the kind. YOU ARE! YOU CLAIM THERE IS
> >>>>> THAT WHICH EXISTS OUTSIDE THE HUMAN IMAGINATION! NOT ME!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm sorry to be shouting but you do not seem to get it. If something
> >>>>> exists outside something else, it is separate and apart from the
> >>>>> something else. How can you say it isn't? It seems pointless to even
> >>>>> argue with you. You just do not seem to get it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. I am indeed saying that Quality exists outside of the human
> imagination. But, you seem to miss my point here so I'll say it again.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just because Quality exists outside of the human imagination.. does
> that mean that the human imagination cannot be part of quality itself?  DQ
> creates everything.. What this everything is that it creates is called
> static quality.  Quality creates quality..  You continue to think that
> because I've said Quality exists outside of the human imagination then I
> must think that the human imagination is not also quality.  But I'm not
> saying this and it doesn't have to be(and isn't) the case.  This is my
> point.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> Then I would say you are arguing for arguments sake and nothing more.
> >>> You are using terms not in keeping with their meaning.
> >>
> >> I disagree. If only I could draw a simple picture..
> >>
> >> Imagine a circle..
> >>
> >> Now imagine a smaller circle entirely within that larger circle…
> >>
> >> The outer circle represents Quality existing outside the human
> imagination.. The smaller circle represents the human imagination.. The
> human imagination is still a part of Quality but Quality is separate from
> it... Not completely separate but separate nonetheless.
> >
> > Dan:
> > Either something exists apart from the human imagination or it
> > doesn't.
>
> Or something is a part of both the human imagination and isn't..
>
> Quality is part of the human imagination - the human imagination is
> composed of intellectual patterns of value.   Yet - even as their name
> implies - the human imagination and ideas don't exist in a void.  The human
> imagination is composed of value.  Value is more fundamental than the human
> imagination and yet the human imagination is composed of it as a building
> block..
>

Dan:
If Quality existed apart from the human imagination we would know nothing
of it.


>
> > According to Robert Pirsig: "The world has no existence
> > whatsoever outside the human imagination." So I take it you disagree
> > with him on this as well as on Dynamic Quality becoming synonymous
> > with experience.
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you offer a cogent
> > argument to back up your assertions. So far, I don't see that you
> > have. I mean, come on: not completely separate but separate
> > nonetheless? Really?
>
> Yes. Really.. If you think it through you will realise that the human
> imagination is composed of quality yet Quality creates it.


Dan:
I would say static quality patterns emerge from Dynamic Quality.


> When Pirsig writes 'the world has not existence whatsoever outside the
> human imagination' and where Pirsig writes about the Law of Gravity not
> existing before Newton - Pirsig knows that those who understand idealism
> are in a better shape to understand the MOQ than those who do not..
>
> "I think idealism is of higher quality for understanding the MOQ because
> most people understand materialism as “common sense” but few understand
> idealism as “common sense,” and you need both. Although Dynamic Quality is
> neither an object nor an idea, I have
> always felt that someone who understands idealism will figure out the MOQ
> much faster than someone who only understands materialism." - LC
>
> Because it is true.. All is ideas .. But what are ideas? That's the key
> question and the answer to how Quality creates ideas and how ideas are
> intellectual patterns of value.
>

Dan:
There are high quality ideas and low quality ideas and we know the
difference.


>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that Subjects and Objects are a part of
> experience?   I've asked this many times but how do they exist if they are
> not experienced?  I mean, you're right - it is ultimately the wrong
> question.  But a reasonable one to anyone who sees value in the idea that
> things which we experience actually exist and aren't just imagined.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you've been following me at all, then you must see that
> our concept
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the world always lags behind experience. Experience has
> moved on by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the time we recognize and categorize the things emerging
> from 'it.'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Experience has moved on? Is that DQ? DQ moves? You seem to be
> confusing DQ with the physical property of change..
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Please try re-reading what I wrote without taking a few words
> out of context.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to understand what you think experience is? Is it
> DQ? static quality? What is it?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>> No one can define experience in its entirety. You are asking an
> >>>>>>>>> impossible question for the definition goes on and on. Within
> the MOQ
> >>>>>>>>> experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous. Static quality
> >>>>>>>>> emerges from experience.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From one perspective…
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As Ant McWatt and Robert Pirsig say - there are two perspectives
> of the MOQ - not one.  The confusion is that you only want to talk from -
> the perspective of the Mystic - and not about the intellectual static
> divisions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> That may be so. However, from the mystical perspective there is no
> >>>>>>> intellectual distinction to be made. So how do you explain me being
> >>>>>>> here discussing these ideas with you good people if you think…
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Right. I can't understand it that's why I keep talking with you.
> Clearly you have some interest in intellectual patterns of value..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> Of course I do. I never made claim to being a mystic. You seem to
> want
> >>>>> to hang that label on me but that isn't right.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sometimes it is.  Sometimes I am a Mystic.  I'm a Mystic when it
> comes to DQ.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> I am honored to meet you. I have never met a mystic before.
> >>
> >> Yes. The MOQ is unique in that it supports someone who is Mystical yet
> intellectual without empirical contradiction.
> >
> > Dan:
> > Could you offer a quote supporting that thesis?
>
> "There is no “self” that contains these patterns. These patterns contain
> the self. This denial agrees with both religious mysticism and scientific
> knowledge. In Zen, there is reference to “big self” and “small self.” Small
> self is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality." LC
>
> and
>
> "Bradley(a Mystic) has given an excellent description of what the MOQ
> calls Dynamic Quality and an excellent rational justification for its
> intellectual acceptance.  It and the MOQ can be spliced together with no
> difficulty into a broader explanation of the same thing." - Copleston
> annotation.
>
> and probably most directly -
>
> "Phasdrus thought it portended very well for his Metaphysics of Quality
> that both mysticism and science reject metaphysics for completely opposite
> reasons. It suggested that if there is a bridge between the two, between
> the understanding of the Indians(Mystics) and the understanding of the
> anthropologists, metaphysics is where that bridge is located."
>

Dan:
Yes that's right but still, isn't a mystic reality one that exists without
intellectual divisions?

"In the language of everyday life, reality and intellect are different.
>From the language of the Buddha’s world, they are the same, since there is
no intellectual division that governs the Buddha’s world." [Lila's Child,
Robert Pirsig]


>
> >
> >>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And that you'll deny that you talk from the perspective of the
> Mystic in no way means that you don't do it.  Because every Mystic denies
> even being a Mystic… By definition a Mystic doesn't like intellectual
> distinctions - including those between 'Mystic' and 'non-Mystic'.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> Liking and not liking has no bearing here. How many mystics have
> you
> >>>>>>> met in your life? Did they tell you they didn't like intellectual
> >>>>>>> distinctions? Is that how you know this? Or is this more
> conjecture on
> >>>>>>> your part?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No they never said this. Good point.  What they do do - Well bad
> one's at least.. Is muddy the distinction between what's intellectual and
> what's DQ.  Which is what you seem to be doing when you talk about
> experience.. What is experience Dan? Is it static quality or is it DQ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> If Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous in the MOQ, and
> if
> >>>>> we cannot define Dynamic Quality, then how can we hope to define
> >>>>> experience?
> >>>>
> >>>> Firstly in the MOQ.. we begin with Quality.   This Quality is divided
> into Dynamic Quality and static quality.  If something is definable then it
> is static quality.  If it isn't - it's Dynamic Quality.  Even loose
> definitions are static quality and thus are not DQ.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> Here is a mistake. Quality is not divided into Dynamic Quality and
> >>> static quality. The Quality of ZMM becomes the Dynamic Quality of Lila
> >>> and remains undefined. That is, we can never define it in its
> >>> entirety. As soon as we do, it becomes static quality. Dynamic Quality
> >>> is inexhaustible in its definition.
> >>
> >> What is the first division of the MOQ between? Two things?
> >
> > Dan:
> > No. Dynamic Quality is not a thing.
>
> I agree.. But it is between one thing and one non-thing right?
>

Dan:
The first division of the MOQ is between the patterned and the unpatterned,
the defined and the undefined.


>
>  >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Experience is something which can be defined…
> >>>>
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience
> >>>>
> >>>> It exists in an encyclopaedia. And it exists in a dictionary…
> >>>>
> >>>> Your statement that something 'becomes' DQ and refusal to use the
> intellectual clarity of this distinction muddies the clear intellectual
> distinction created between DQ and sq.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> Robert Pirsig has explained how the term 'experience' is defined in
> >>> different ways. I am sure I have already given you the quote. No one
> >>> ever said the term experience cannot be defined in a dictionary or an
> >>> encyclopedia. If Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous in
> >>> the MOQ, then it cannot be defined in ways keeping with the
> >>> definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias, however.
> >>
> >> Right, so finally we have it in writing where you 'admit' you are
> clearly using the term experience in a different way to its dictionary
> definition.
> >
> > Dan:
> > Finally you seem to grasp what I have been saying all along, yes.
>
> Right. Well I read this by Pirsig in LC…
>
> "We must all use terms as they are described in the dictionary or we lose
> the ability to communicate with each other."
>
> Why is it better to view experience as a third Category of the MOQ (not DQ
> or sq) than as it is described in the dictionary?
>

Dan:
It is better not to use the term 'experience' at all in the MOQ. But if we
do, we should use the term in keeping with its usage in the MOQ. If you
look up dynamic in the dictionary you will find definitions for it. Yet in
the MOQ, it is better to keep it concept free.

I do not believe I ever said experience is a third category in the MOQ.
That is your baby.


>
> >
> >> I agree with you experience can become synonymous with DQ to the point
> where they are synonymous and at this point intellectual distinctions or
> definitions are meaningless.. However there is a whole world of distinction
> and definition where experience means something static..
> >
> > Dan:
> > Well, I have been over this before.
>
> Right. And yet, somehow you seem to want to pretend that we cannot use
> experience in this way? Or that we are using the term experience
> incorrectly? Or that the dictionary definition is 'wrong'? Isn't a
> description of the MOQ which includes the term experience as used in the
> dictionary - better?
>

Dan:
You seem inclined to take many liberties with my words in order to make me
appear ridiculous. I am unsure why. It becomes frustrating after a time and
tends to make me want to say the hell with this. I'll continue to fight the
urge as long as I might.

Anyway, I did not say the dictionary definitions of experience are wrong. I
said the way the term 'experience' is used in the MOQ doesn't appear in any
dictionary. Neither does Dynamic Quality, for that matter. Yet both words
are defined in any dictionary you pick up.


>
> "In the MOQ, there is only one “layer” of reality: experience." - Pirsig
>

Dam:
Exactly. There is no ultimate reality.


>
> The MOQ describes reality - The MOQ describes experience.. As its first
> division it breaks this reality into two - DQ and sq..
>

Dan:
Static quality emerges from experience. In the MOQ, experience and Dynamic
Quality become synonymous. Static quality describes experience but it is
not experience.


>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "What would you call it? Degeneracy, he guessed. Writing a
> metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. "
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this a great quote but I don't see how it is
> applicable here.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly it's applicable - this attempt to capture that which
> cannot be caught is degeneracy..   Do you deny that by using intellectual
> sq your attempting to define DQ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Once intellectual patterns have emerged they are no longer
> Dynamic.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, but they are an attempt.  When you describe experience -
> what are you describing?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>> A memory, a snapshot, an ephemeral 'something' that I turn into
> the world.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So experience is a description of a memory?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> No. You asked me what I am describing when I describe an
> experience.
> >>>>>>> Describing experience is secondary to experience, of course.
> >>>>>>> Distinctions arise from experience but they are not experience.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's right.. So, for the most important question, what is it that
> these descriptions are describing?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> I have answered this question already. Experience.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is experience DQ or is it sq? It must be one or there other to be in
> accordance with the MOQ.. If not - is there a third category of the MOQ
> that I don't know about?  If so, what is it?
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> I have already answered this question. In the MOQ, experience and
> >>> Dynamic Quality become synonymous. That should be a 'wow' moment but
> >>> as I have repeated it many times over I can see it isn't.
> >>
> >> It isn't.
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > T'is a shame, that.
>
> Perhaps it is..  But so far I think it's strange to think that experience
> is a third category of the MOQ..
>

Dan:
So why are you promulgating such a notion? I agree it is strange and even a
bit silly.


>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> When we describe things we describe intellectual patterns?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> Asked and answered.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What are those original memories which we're describing made up
> of then?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> Experience.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is that experience static or DQ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> How can it be either?
> >>>>
> >>>> It can be either because Quality is experience.. They're the same
> thing.. If you don't value something you don't experience it.. Experience
> is either static quality or Dynamic Quality?
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> By putting labels on Dynamic Quality we encapsulate it. That's what we
> >>> do with static quality. But we must be careful not to do with with
> >>> Dynamic Quality.
> >>
> >> All static quality is a label on Dynamic Quality.. This is degeneracy
> but unavoidable..  Yet you continually appear to want to deny this
> degeneracy? Pretend like it doesn't happen?
> >
> > Dan:
> > Asked and answered. I am not a mystic. Since you are, then it would
> > appear you are the one practicing degeneracy, not me.
>
> You're not a mystic? You practice Zen?
>

Dan:
I have no idea how to practice Zen. I sit. I rise. I go about my life. Zen
has nothing to do with it.


>
> " Zen, which is a mystic religion, argues that the illusion of dividedness
> can be overcome by meditation. " - Lila.
>

Dan:
I am not a religious person by any stretch of the imagination. ;-)


>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's strange to me that you refuse to say that DQ =
> experience.  If DQ isn't experience - what then is experience?  Is it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply 'Dynamic' as you say above? What do you mean by
> that?  Intrigued.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the MOQ, Dynamic Quality becomes synonymous with
> experience. We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> define experience all the time. By the time those static
> definitions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> emerge, however, 'it' has moved on. So we continually define
> 'it' and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet these definitions are inexhaustible. By saying Dynamic
> Quality is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> experience or that it equals experience is to completely
> misunderstand
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the nature of experience. It is to say we have encapsulated
> experience
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> within a static pattern.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So if experience isn't Dynamic Quality what is it? It seems
> you want it to be both static quality and Dynamic Quality or not Dynamic
> Quality or static quality at the same time..  What is experience?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>> What I want is irrelevant. If Dynamic Quality and experience
> become
> >>>>>>>>>>> synonymous in the MOQ, then to define either is beyond the
> scope of
> >>>>>>>>>>> intellect.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What you want, what you value - that's the whole thing..  Very
> far from irrelevant. Without your values you don't exist.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>> What I want and what I value are not the same.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I obviously disagree so if you could provide examples that would
> be nice.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> I want to sit here and write stories all day and night. I value my
> >>>>>>> lights and my computer coming on when I flip a switch. If I do as I
> >>>>>>> want, the electric company will cut off my power on account of me
> not
> >>>>>>> settling my account since I didn't go to work and make enough
> money to
> >>>>>>> make the monkey dance. So what I want and what I value are not the
> >>>>>>> same. Does that help at all?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In your example here what you want is what you value intellectually
> or even Dynamically.  But you know that you cannot value just intellectual
> quality or DQ - so you follow social quality for a while to support these
> higher values..   All these things are still your values and are very
> important.  Without these values you wouldn't exist and so neither would
> this discussion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> No that isn't exactly right. And I realize that since you can imagine
> >>>>> the real me that you must know all about me. I assure you what I want
> >>>>> and what I value are two different things and I assure you I know the
> >>>>> difference even if you insist on twisting my words to agree with your
> >>>>> wants and your values.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know *all* about you. But I assure you it is true that what
> you want is what you value just on a different level..  Everything is
> values so how can wants be somehow removed from them?
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> If we say everything is value we are correct. But that doesn't tell us
> >>> anything. Yeah, sure, it's all value. The key is knowing what values
> >>> correspond to desires and wants, likes and dislikes, and what values
> >>> correspond to reality as it is.
> >>
> >> What is reality if it is not all of these values including our wants,
> likes and dislikes?
> >
> > Dan:
> > Since Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous in the MOQ,
> > that isn't a question that can be answered. Rather, the answer would
> > go on and on and on and on and…
>
> Right - Dynamic Quality is a part of our experience so it is a question
> which goes on and on and on.. But then there is that definable part of
> experience we call static quality..  This can and is defined and indeed
> does include our wants, likes and dislikes..
>

Dan:
It is good you have it figured out. I think it is best we drop it and agree
to disagree. We are making no headway and there is nothing more I can say.


>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So what then is experience if it isn't Dynamic Quality? What is
> it?  static quality?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>> Within the MOQ, experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is experience DQ or is it static quality? It must be one or the
> other no? Or can it (as I say) be either?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> Asked and answered. Please review our previous correspondence.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have been reading our previous correspondence as we progress..
> You never categorically say whether experience is DQ or if it is sq. I'm
> interested in intellectual clarity - aren't you? If not, why not?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> That's because I know enough not to categorically say something that
> >>>>> cannot be substantiated in any way. If you are interested in
> >>>>> intellectual clarity you might want to spend a little more time
> >>>>> reading what I say. Or not.
> >>>>
> >>>> I do take the time to read what you say.. I could easily ask the same
> of you..  This is the most important part of our discussion…  I thought you
> might say something to this effect. But the problem with this is that it
> goes against the clear distinction between what is DQ and what is sq..  If
> experience is neither, what category is it actually in? If it is in both,
> when is it in one and when is it in the other?  I would like some clarity
> of what experience is?  Clarity is beauty.  I say that experience can be
> either DQ or sq.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> I've been working on my mind reading technique but it is clear you
> >>> have already perfected it. If you already know what I am going to say
> >>> before I say it, why bother with discussing anything with me at all?
> >>> Seriously. Write books.
> >>>
> >>> Be that as it may, I have answered this already and grow weary of the
> >>> persistent questions.
> >>
> >> Because you know it all already?
> >
> > Dan:
> > You are the mystic mind reader so why are you asking me?
>
> I'm a mind reader now? I'm sure I've said that far from mind reading it is
> difficult to understand what someone is saying and the values they hold..
>

Dan:
You are telling me that you thought I would say what I said before I said
it, so I take that to mean you are reading my mind. And you've already said
you are a mystic. Plus you seem to have me boxed into convenient categories
like Zen person. If you know so much about me, why are you asking me
questions?


>
> >
> >> If you know it - then the questions shouldn't matter.. I would love
> some questions. So far I've only been asked one good question about whether
> I think everything exists (which it does on one value level or another).
> >
> > Dan:
> > It is clear I disappoint you.
>
> From your lack of questions - I wouldn't call disappointing.. I would say
> disheartening..
>

Dan:
Why continue the discussion, then? What are you hoping to find?


>
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree with Pirsig of Lila's Child where he says
> that Dynamic Quality is infinitely definable?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. You must be misunderstanding both what I am
> saying and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> what Robert Pirsig is saying. Once defined, 'it' is no
> longer Dynamic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quality. Yes, I understand it is confusing, especially if
> one is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> holding onto the notion that we experience the world of
> objects that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> exist independently of the observer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which I'm not doing.  In fact I'm continually telling you
> otherwise and yet you're holding onto the idea..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll say it again for like the 1000'th time… It can be a good
> idea that objects exist independently of the observer..  Yes that is an
> idea - but what is fundamental is not the idea but the quality of it -
> there is no idea beyond this quality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>> So this quality is independent of human imagination? And we
> know of it, how?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's not independent.  I never said that.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>> You most certainly did: "Quality is what exists outside the
> human imagination."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Logically it does not follow that if something precedes something
> else it cannot persist and be part of that new thing. So no I do not think
> it is separate yet Quality does exist outside the human imagination.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> Ah. So now we are making it up as we go along. Come on, David. If
> >>>>>>> something exists outside of something else then it is separate.
> Lets
> >>>>>>> not play these silly games. I really don't have the time for it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is separate but being separate doesn't imply that anything
> preceding it doesn't have it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> More nonsense. Okay. Let's just drop it then.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please tell me how this is nonsense! How is this response caring?
> Your rudeness isn't good, it's just low quality rudeness..
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense is using terms that are outside their definition.
> >>>
> >>> separate:
> >>> 1. to keep apart or divide, as by an intervening barrier or space: to
> >>> separate two fields by a fence.
> >>> 2. to put, bring, or force apart; part: to separate two fighting boys.
> >>> 3. to set apart; disconnect; dissociate: to separate church and state.
> >>> 4. to remove or sever from association, service, etc., especially
> >>> legally or formally: He was separated from the army right after V-E
> >>> Day.
> >>> 5. to sort, part, divide, or disperse (an assemblage, mass, compound,
> >>> etc.), as into individual units, components, or elements.
> >>>
> >>> I take it that anything separate and apart from the human imagination
> >>> is disconnected, disassociated, severed, divided, dispersed, etc.
> >>>
> >>> To then say because Quality comes before the human imagination it
> >>> includes human imagination and yet it is apart from it seems like
> >>> nonsense to me. Now, if it is not nonsense, then I am indeed being
> >>> rude and ugly. You have yet to mollify my concerns, however, except
> >>> for feeding me more nonsense and telling me it is supposed to taste
> >>> good so go ahead and eat it.
> >>>
> >>> However, if it looks like nonsense, if it sounds like nonsense, if it
> >>> tastes like nonsense, and it appears for all the world to be nonsense,
> >>> then it is not rude of me to say so but prudent and practical.
> >>> Wouldn't you agree?
> >>
> >> I would agree with that if it weren't for the fact that you are wrong
> about it being nonsense..   Quality does come before the human imagination,
> so in this sense it is separate from it.  However the human imagination is
> made up of quality.  How could it be made up of anything else?  What is the
> human imagination?
> >
> > Dan:
> > I don't know what to make of this.
>
> Please start by answering the question.. You *may* find something
> unexpected..
>

Dan:
If nothing exists outside the human imagination, then it seems obvious (to
me) that the human imagination is everything we know. How is that
unexpected?


>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I can try and determine what you value by the words you use.
>  To help me in this understanding I have a metaphysics which allows me to
> categorise your thoughts into its structure of quality.  I'm relaying these
> thoughts of mine back to you so you can point out anything I missed or am
> wrong about and can thus hopefully improve both my understanding and the
> words I use to explain it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>> Kind of like putting me into a neat little box so that you can
> >>>>>>>>> understand me? Instead, think of it as trying to understanding
> the
> >>>>>>>>> MOQ…
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Okay what is our discussion about the MOQ without the two people
> discussing it? Can our discussion exist without us?  We can pretend that
> our values don't exist here but that would be a HUGE mistake.  We have SOM
> to thank for this type of thinking of yours which claims that we ought to
> remain 'impartial' and 'objective' and that a 'true' MOQ exists separate
> from us.  And that we can somehow separate ourselves from our discussion
> and then discuss this thing we call the MOQ.  But as we both know this is
> ridiculous - The idea that we're some all knowing beings who can look at
> things without values is ridiculous and this is beautifully explained by
> Pirsig in ZMM.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So along these lines - I am trying to understand what you're
> saying and see what you value to see if it is better than what I currently
> think and value.  If I don't care about what you value then I wouldn't care
> about what you're saying either.  But your values are first, then what you
> say flows from that.  What we are discussing here are values not words on a
> page..  Neither you or I are going to change our minds unless we see that
> it is better for us to do so..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is quite different to how a philosophical discussion usually
> progresses…. There is a *very* strong intellectual history of dialectally
> trying to tare an interlocutor down and look for weaknesses in his argument
> rather than actively trying to see the quality of what he is saying.  But
> the old method relies only on logic whose goal is truth at the expense of
> quality.  I'm not interested in such things - I want to know what's true
> *and* good.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> You must think me a dullard and you are of course right. You are
> much
> >>>>>>> more refined in your thinking and I thank you for illuminating my
> many
> >>>>>>> misconceptions. Someday I may know what is good and true and bask
> in
> >>>>>>> the light of knowing as well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No I don't think you're a dullard.  I've many times told you what I
> thought of you and it has been only good things. Your sarcasm and other
> responses within this post are only making me think alternative things
> however..  Cheer up Dan! My perspective isn't as horrid as you think..  You
> want me to be only for intellectual quality and that's it.  But that has me
> all wrong..  I think the MOQ supports staying in the moment when it's good
> to do so… It also supports intellectual quality when it's good to do so
> too… Why? Because intellectual quality is unavoidable.  Can you live
> without making an intellectual value judgement?  No. So let's get all
> aspects of our lives as good as we possibly can.  And that includes
> thinking which takes us away from the present moment...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> I am not depressed. You seem to want to color me in the same shades
> as
> >>>>> you. You continually tell me what I want, what I value, what I like.
> >>>>> You advise me that I cannot stay in the moment. That is all well and
> >>>>> good. If it works for you, fine. I am nothing like you imagine,
> >>>>> however.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't advise you that you cannot stay in the moment.. I think that
> you can stay in the moment… I can too.. So can Zen Masters.. I encourage
> you to be a Zen Master at staying in the moment.. In fact, I know that you
> already sit and do just that. But how long can you stay in the moment for?
>  Forever? Then what?
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> Always planning, always thinking about what comes next, never really
> >>> listening, never really seeing what is right there in front of you.
> >>> That's what comes next.
> >>
> >> So you claim it is possible to stay in the moment forever? I see the
> value in this Dan. I see the value in living in the moment.. But if you
> really see that - then why talk Philosophy - which by its nature is
> withdrawn from the moment and is actually thoughts about 'the moment'?
> >
> > Dan:
> > I don't think you are reading what I write, or if you are, you are not
> > paying attention.
>
> Oh but I am.. You are pointing to the moment.. I'm asking about the
> alternative perspective and how you see that fitting in to the whole
> thing...
>

Dan:
I am in the moment right now as I write these words. I am not thinking
about what I write nor am I planning what I will be doing when I am done
writing. By putting my whole attention into these words I would hope a bit
of quality might show within them. But of course that would depend upon the
reader.

You seem to be saying it is better to play around the edges, to dabble a
bit here and a fool around a bit there while planning what you will be
doing next. Is that the alternative you are asking about? If so, I cannot
see how it is better than putting one's full attention into the moment.

It would of course explain a great deal, however.


>
> >>>>>>>>>> I've answered your quality query below.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah. So you now see static quality emerges from experience
> and is no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> longer experience itself. That's wonderful!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I always agreed with your position on this.. You wanted us to
> disagree about this (still do) but I held two contradictory views at the
> same time… How do I justify this? Because unlike yourself - I think that
> Quality exists before the human imagination - If something is a good idea
> then that's right - if something else at a different time is a good idea
> then the alternative is right..
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>> How can you know anything exists independent of human
> imagination?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Think about it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I have. And when I start to think about it I begin to think
> about what the nature of knowledge is itself and what it actually means to
> 'know' anything.  What is 'knowledge'? If you start talking about what you
> know - you'll start thinking about things which you value.  To know
> something is to know what's good. This understanding of the world - one
> which places quality at the start - is fabulously more coherent and more
> harmonious an understanding than one which does not.  That's how I know
> that Quality exists beyond the human imagination.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>> Each day, I begin with a blank slate upon which to write the
> story of
> >>>>>>>>> my life. I've forgotten most of what I ever knew, and I didn't
> know
> >>>>>>>>> that much to begin with. I keep to the moment. What does that
> mean?
> >>>>>>>>> Keeping to the moment? It means speaking when spoken to, working
> when
> >>>>>>>>> work is needed, eating when I am hungry, drinking when I am
> thirsty,
> >>>>>>>>> sleeping when I am tired. I am not thinking about what I will be
> doing
> >>>>>>>>> after I speak, after I work, after I eat, after I drink, after I
> >>>>>>>>> sleep.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This knowledge you speak of will only take you farther away from
> the
> >>>>>>>>> moment. It will never bring you closer. This world you think
> that you
> >>>>>>>>> understand is all in your imagination. There is nothing that
> exists
> >>>>>>>>> outside that imagination.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't disagree with you.  But I think that your perspective is
> narrow. You are only interested in the things which you value.  What you
> value is keeping to the moment.  You do not want to or value going away
> from this moment.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> Again, I am lazy and ignorant it's true. I keep to the moment and
> let
> >>>>>>> others revel in shiny baubles and trinkets of pleasure. Everyone
> else
> >>>>>>> has plans. I never know what I am going to do next. I just do it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's fine. But plans can be good 'sometimes' too..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> Yes I am sure you are right as long as you realize plans can be good
> >>>>> for you and not for me.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think, all else being equal, plans are good for everyone..
> >>>>
> >>>> But where do plans come from?
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> From foolish minds who believe they can foresee the future.
> >>
> >> Or intelligent people who use their minds to plan for the future
> catastrophe or accomplishment?  Our culture wouldn't function without
> planning.  We need to plan for who's going to be where at what time.
> Hospitals need to plan for who is going to be sick.  Police need to plan
> for where crimes may be committed.  Roads need to be planned for where
> people are likely to travel.  Are all these things foolish?
> >
> > Dan:
> > Hah! I am probably the last person for you to be asking these questions
> of.
>
> So you're an anarchist?  Whatever goes?
>

Dan:
Did I say that? No. Again, you are trying to box me in, to figure me out.
You never will so why keep trying?


>
> >> What is valuable is what is probable.. If something is valued highly
> then it is very probable. If we look at values intelligently - then we can
> plan for the future intelligently - by seeing what is likely to happen and
> react accordingly.
> >>
> >> Our minds aren't perfect.. We never get a complete hold on everything..
> Things will happen which no amount of planning could predict..  But a life
> with planning is better than one without!
> >
> > Dan:
> > Really! How do you know? Have you ever lived a life without planning?
>
> To some degree yes.. And I've found it was a less rewarding life than one
> with.. As the examples show above.. a society without planning would not
> work.  This is a lot of where the cultural power of the intellectual level
> lies..   Things work better when there is intelligence involved to some
> degree.
>

Dan:
Work better for who? For you? That is good, then. I'm guessing most
everyone will agree with you. Except for those few who know better.


>
> >>>>>> I'll give you my answer in advance - Being intellectual seems
> against your non-planning ethos. I do not think these two things need to be
> in opposition.  I think you can be 'present with the moment' when it is
> good to do so and be intellectual and plan when it is good to do so too..
> The MOQ supports all different types of quality.  Different qualities for
> different times - depending on what's good at the time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> There is that which is of higher value and that which is of lower
> >>>>> value. By keeping one's attention focused upon what is at hand, the
> >>>>> moment, one is better able to navigate the currents of Quality that
> >>>>> constitute our reality.
> >>>>
> >>>> Right so Quality exists and is our reality - not the human
> imagination?
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> Like everything else, human imagination is Quality.
> >>
> >> Right.  So we are saying exactly the same thing? Why not just say
> Quality exists and that the human imagination is created by it.
> >
> > Dan:
> > You seem to be saying Quality is separate from the human imagination.
> > No. Check that. You definitely say it. So no, of course we aren't
> > saying the same thing.
>
> Quality *is* separate from the human imagination.. How could Quality not
> be separate from it?  What is the human imagination without Quality?  It
> doesn't exist without it…
>

Dan:
If human imagination doesn't exist without Quality how can they be
separate? Are you sure this is what you want to say?


> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But then, there's this other world of thought..  The
> intellectual level..  Do I 'imagine' the world of thought or does the
> intellectual level exist?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to ZMM, yes. And I should think Lila says the
> same thing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The levels of the MOQ are provisional. They exist in the
> imagination.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intellectual level exists, sure, but it exists in the
> mind.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, in the MOQ, intellectual and social patterns
> correspond to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the subjective side, or idealism, while biological and
> inorganic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patterns correspond to the objective side, or materialism.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's right.  So the intellectual level along with every
> other one exists..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it didn't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well - you deny that matter exists before we think about it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Where did you get this from? Please supply a quote.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> By your insistence that all that exists is the human
> imagination(ideas):
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "What actually exists?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>> The human imagination."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>> It isn't my insistence. I have made it clear that it is a quote
> from
> >>>>>>>>> Robert Pirsig.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The human imagination exists along with a whole lot of other
> things.  I have made it clear with a quote from Robert Pirsig that Quality
> exists before the human imagination.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> So you are using Robert Pirsig against himself. Huh. Curious.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No.  The reason why these two Pirsig quotes seem to contradict
> isn't because he is contradicting himself - or because he 'accidentally'
> says two things which seem contradictory and I'm(for some sinister reason)
> trying to make it appear that way - But because as I keep explaining - it
> is because while Quality exists *before* the human imagination - it creates
> it as well... Like a parent who gives a child part of their DNA - Quality
> is still a part of the human imagination which precedes it.  It's no
> accident the word Quality is part of both Dynamic Quality and static
> quality.  All is Quality. Good is a noun.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This explains a statement from Pirsig in LC...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "The statement that Quality is reality itself does not follow
> logically from the statements that quality is not subjective or objective.
> That is why Pirsig never said this."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So Quality can be subjective *and* reality itself at the same time.
>  It's not an either/or choice as you seem to imply.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> I imply no such thing. This quote you offer has nothing to do with
> the
> >>>>> world existing outside the human imagination. I would venture to say
> >>>>> that if Robert Pirsig seems to be contradicting himself it is not him
> >>>>> who is doing the contradicting but the person who is doing the
> >>>>> interpreting. In other words, you.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I don't see any contradiction in what Pirsig writes.  If the
> quotes I provide to what you write conjure contradiction in your mind then
> the contradiction is with you only and my quotes have served their purpose
> of showing you that what you think about subjectivity and Quality is not in
> line with the MOQ as I understand it.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's true that the idea that Quality exists beyond human experience
> is itself an idea.. But what is an idea? An idea is a pattern of
> intellectual quality.  The way we choose the truth of one idea over another
> is its Quality.  In other words - without quality these ideas wouldn't
> exist.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> You are free to interpret, mangle, desecrate, dissect, and dilute the
> >>> MOQ in any way you wish.
> >>
> >> Right. But am I right or wrong? I think the quality of my thoughts can
> be compared to other thoughts and the quality(or lack thereof) of these
> ideas exists and is just as real as this computer I write on.
> >
> > Dan:
> > Right and wrong has nothing to do with it. There are high quality
> > ideas and there are low quality ideas and you know the difference as
> > well as I do.
>
> Yes. And I would have thought that you'd know that 'wrong' is low quality
> and 'right' is high quality.
>

Dan:
Not according to the dictionary.


>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this intellectual level part of experience?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a memory of experience, a map, if you will.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately yes.  But to avoid the pitfalls of idealism, we
> say that the quality of an ideal is what makes it exist and not the ideal
> existence itself..  A quality idea is that sq exists and is experienced.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Static quality exists but it is no longer experience. It has
> emerged
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from experience.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that static quality exists and is experienced is a
> good idea..  There is no singular truth in the MOQ..  You only need look to
> see what's actually good and logic will follow.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>>>> It may be a good idea TO YOU. If so, then fine.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Quality isn't just subjective.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Quality is universal.  Quality creates all things.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "And finally: Phædrus, following a path that to his knowledge
> had never been taken before in the history of Western thought, went
> straight between the horns of the subjectivity-objectivity dilemma and said
> Quality is neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter. It is a
> third entity which is independent of the two."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>>>> I think this is part of why he introduced the MOQ in a second
> book.
> >>>>>>>>> The Quality of ZMM has been replaced by the Dynamic Quality of
> Lila.
> >>>>>>>>> All things emerge from Dynamic Quality. Subjects and objects are
> >>>>>>>>> secondary. They arise from experience; they have no independent
> >>>>>>>>> existence.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> They have a static quality existence - separate and very
> different from a DQ non-existence.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan:
> >>>>>>> They have no independent existence apart from experience.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Right. An experience which is static quality?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> No David. I begin to suspect this is your whole problem. You seem to
> >>>>> desire static quality to exist. You seem to want it to be real,
> >>>>> something we can experience, something that is reassuring. Static
> >>>>> quality always lags behind the experience. It is a snapshot, a
> memory,
> >>>>> of the moment that has passed by.
> >>>>
> >>>> Right.. static quality is later.. DQ is first.. I agree with all of
> that.  But when we talk Metaphysics.. Intellectually - it is always after
> the fact.. It never quite captures DQ.. So it never gets it right.. So why
> bother?
> >>>>
> >>>> I bother because it cannot be avoided and so we might as well get
> these intellectual descriptions of experience as good as we can.  To do
> that we pretend that these sq descriptions actually represent our
> experience.. The act of being intellectual is 'pretending' that sq exists.
>  This is a different perspective than the perspective that DQ is synonymous
> with experience.. But an unavoidable one nonetheless..
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> Well, I don't ever remember saying we have to pretend static quality
> >>> exists, nor have I ever said there is a perspective that DQ is
> >>> synonymous with experience. That is all your doing. To me, static
> >>> quality exists. I don't have to pretend. In the MOQ, Dynamic Quality
> >>> becomes synonymous with experience. That seems very simple and
> >>> succinct. In other words, it has harmony and points toward Quality.
> >>
> >> And I'm trying to see that Quality but cannot.  The ugliest thing about
> 'Dynamic Quality becoming synonymous with experience' is that it places the
> word 'experience' into the same undefined category as DQ.
> >
> > Dan:
> > In other words, you disagree with Robert Pirsig and nothing I say will
> > sway that disbelief. Strange that you would spend so much time with
> > his MOQ and yet have so fundamental a disagreement with it.
> >
> > And again, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with him or with
> > me. That's how we grow and evolve. But it behooves us to offer up
> > something better in its place. I don't see that you are doing that
> > here.
>
> Well unfortunately I don't disagree with Pirsig.


Dan:
Don't you mean 'fortunately'?


>  I disagree with your focus on his statement that "Experience and DQ
> become synonymous" in the MOQ..  That is however(according to Pirsig) - but
> one of three different ways the term experience can be used..  What about a
> subject experiencing an object? Or an object experiencing an object?  These
> things still happen and are still a part of experience..
>

Dan:
What about it? Like I said in a different email to you, he is writing down
to us. Are you content with that? If so, fine. You are of course free to
disagree with my focus on the MOQ. I know I am somewhat singular in my
pursuit of Quality.


>
>
> >
> >> Why not just say that DQ is experience? If experience isn't sq or DQ -
> what is it? These are simply questions that an intellectual mind wants
> answered.  Answers which aren't forthcoming from you..
> >
> > Dan:
> > I have taken time to explain these very questions, which I take it by
> > this you failed to read, or worse, to comprehend. I don't know what
> > more to say.
>
> I could say the same thing.
>

Dan:
I suppose so.


>
>
> >>
> >> Alternatively - as I've said many times.. Experience can be either DQ
> or static quality.  There is no difference between experience and quality.
> They are the same thing.. That which isn't experienced doesn't exist.
> >
> > Dan:
> > Now see? I asked you about this as did Horse. And you never answered
> > either of us, or if you did, I missed it. Where did you get this idea
> > from? It isn't in ZMM or Lila nor is it in any of Robert Pirsig's
> > subsequent writings that I am aware of. So where is it from? Is it
> > something you are making up?
>
> I don't recall Horse ever asking me about this? Do you have a date or post
> where he does and I don't answer?
>

Dan:
You really should use gmail for these discussions. It automatically sorts
all emails into headings according to the subject. Super convenient.

March 5, 2013 6:13am


>
> Regardless.. I do see I've answered this in the past and it perhaps wasn't
> as persuasive as it could have been… I'll try again(with quotes)..
>
> "The Metaphysics of Quality says pure experience is value. Experience
> which is not valued is not experienced. The two are the same. This is where
> value fits. Value is not at the tail-end of a series of superficial
> scientific deductions that puts it somewhere in a mysterious undetermined
> location in the cortex of the brain. Value is at the very front of the
> empirical procession." - Lila
>
> And
>
> "To this the Metaphysics of Quality adds a second principle: if a thing
> has no value it isn't distinguished from anything else. Then, putting the
> two together, a thing that has no value does not exist. The thing has not
> created the value. The value has created the thing. When it is seen that
> value is the front edge of experience, there is no problem for empiricists
> here. It simply restates the empiricists' belief that experience is the
> starting point of all reality. The only problem is for a subject-object
> metaphysics that calls itself empiricism." - Lila
>
> So in the first quote we see that "pure experience is value".
> And in the second quote we see that a thing with "no value does not exist"…
>
> Therefore a thing which isn't experienced does not exist.
>
> So do you still think I'm making it up?
>
>
Dan:
Well, yes. You are putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with solipsism.


>
> >
> >> Dynamic Quality exists as does static quality - therefore both are part
> of that thing we call experience..
> >>
> >> This answer does explain what experience is- in an intellectual way -
> that is also in line with the MOQ.
> >
> > Dan:
> > Only if you ignore most of what Robert Pirsig says.
>
> I disagree.. Most of what Pirsig says is in line with the fact that
> experience(reality) includes both static quality and Dynamic Quality.  Yes
> - ultimately experience is not definable and it is thus ultimately DQ - but
> we cannot avoid ruining this ultimately undefined quality using static
> quality so this is why we say that experience includes static quality.


> "That was the homer, over the fence, that ended the ball game. Good as a
> noun rather than an adjective is all the Metaphysics of Quality is about.
> Of course, the *ultimate* Quality isn't a noun or an adjective or anything
> else definable, but if you had to reduce the whole Metaphysics of Quality
> to a single sentence, that would be it."
>

Dan:
How does this quote relate to experience including static quality? Or
Dynamic Quality, for that matter?


>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I mean; intellectual discussion like this can be very difficult
> because we're confronting the values of the person we're discussing with
> head on.   Thanks to the MOQ though, we can clearly distinguish between ad
> hominem attacks(which are immoral) and intellectual discussion(which is
> very moral).  I'm wanting to continue this discussion and keep it on the
> intellectual side.  Do you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan:
> >>>>> There have been no ad hominem attacks by me that I am aware of. If
> you
> >>>>> are having difficulty with my words I have done my best to elucidate
> >>>>> them for you. I have repeated myself many times over. That I do not
> >>>>> agree with you is not an indication that I do not understand you. I
> >>>>> do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What you like, what you want, has no bearing here, just as what I
> like
> >>>>> and what I want has no bearing. I don't care what you want just as I
> >>>>> don't care what I want. What possible significance does my wanting
> >>>>> this and that have on this discussion?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I contribute to the group because it seems better than not
> >>>>> contributing. I go to work every day because it seems better than not
> >>>>> going to work every day. I write all night because it seems better
> >>>>> than not writing all night; because it seems better than sitting
> >>>>> around in front of a television set allowing my mind to atrophy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you want someone to play nice then perhaps you should pick someone
> >>>>> else with whom to discuss these ideas. I am not a nice person. I can
> >>>>> be blunt, irritating, and downright rude at times, even vulgar
> >>>>> (gasp!).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But I can assure you I know a thing or two about the MOQ. So if you
> >>>>> enjoy exploring some of its subtle nuances, feel free to explore them
> >>>>> with me. Or not. It is up to you.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am trying to explore subtle nuance with you and hopefully improve
> my understanding of the MOQ in the process.. I keep telling you that I
> agree with you on most of what you write.. I see the value in living in the
> present moment. But there is a subtle issue of these minds of ours
> unavoidably, degenerately trying to capture DQ - no matter how long we sit
> for..  Secondly there is another subtle difference between everything being
> human specific and quality existing before everything.  And thirdly, there
> is a subtle distinction of what is included under the category of
> 'experience' in the MOQ.  Is DQ part of experience?  Is sq part of
> experience? What is experience?  These are the questions I am enjoying
> exploring with you.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> We are human and so everything is human-specific. Since experience
> >>> comes first there is no way to know if anything comes before it, or
> >>> not. Within the MOQ, experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>
> >> Experience is experience
> >
> > Dan:
> > And black is black and white is white. So what? What are you saying?
>
> That there is nothing beyond experience(value).
>

Dan:
So nothing exists outside the human imagination after all.


>
> >
> >> - there is no need to know if anything comes before it. Dynamic Quality
> and static quality are both a part of experience.
> >
> > Dan:
> > It would depend upon how you are using the term 'experience.' Since we
> > are discussing the MOQ, it would seem better to use the term in that
> > fashion.
>
> The MOQ does not deny any other perspective - it includes it within a
> larger understanding..
>
> ".. the MOQ only contradicts the SOM denial that value exists in the real
> world. The MOQ says it does. Thus the MOQ is an expansion of existing
> knowledge, not a denial of existing knowledge."
>

Dan:
Yes but that doesn't mean it is a free-for-all-anything-goes philosophy
either.


>
>
> >> Dynamic Quality is that part of experience which we cannot define.
> >
> > Dan:
> > We define it all the time. We cannot define it completely, however.
> > Once defined, 'it' has become static quality and is no longer Dynamic
> > Quality
>
> Right. DQ can be both not defined and defined infinitely. I should be more
> careful..
>
> >
> >> Static quality is that part which is defined.
> >
> > Dan:
> > Ah.
> >
> >> Philosophy is concerned with capturing our ultimately undefined
> experience and putting (human specific) names and words on it.  When we
> talk philosophy we run under the assumption that these words and names of
> things actually are the things they represent.. But that's just an
> assumption we go by - based on the fact that it's unavoidable to create
> static things - so it's a good one to go by.
> >>
> >> "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."
> >
> > Dan:
> > Well, again, I am not a mystic and so I have no idea what a mystic
> > reality of the world would consist of. Mine consists of the here and
> > now.
>
> A non Mystic Zen person? I've never met one of those…
>

Dan:
Me either.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com