[MD] Is experience just DQ?

[Hamilton Priday]

Hi David (Harding), Dan, Ron, and All --

I realize this is a topic that was chewed over during the first quarter of 
this year, and dropped without resolution.  But it's critical to 
understanding the MoQ, as well as metaphysics itself.  This is one of those 
cases where clarification is needed from a source outside the Discuss group, 
and am happy to volunteer, despite the fact that nobody seems to care about 
what I say.  (Maybe that gives me an advantage.)

David Harding initiated this thread with a dialog with Dan Glover, which ran 
like this:

>>> Dan:
>>> According to the MOQ we don't actually experience static quality. I
>>> think this excerpt might help illuminate my point here. See what you
>>> think:
>>>
>>> "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:
>>> Note he says experience comes first and every THING else comes later.
>>> There are no pre-existing patterns of value, or subjects and objects
>>> for that matter. So to say we experience both Dynamic Quality and
>>> static quality is to form a fundamental misunderstanding with the MOQ.
>>> Static quality comes after experience.
>
>> David:
>> Yes, the MOQ begins with the experience of Dynamic Quality.
>
> Dan:
> I don't see it that way. The MOQ clearly states that experience and
> Dynamic Quality are seen as synonymous. We do not experience Dynamic
> Quality. 'It' IS experience.




-----Original Message----- 
From: David Harding
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 9:03 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: [MD] Is experience just DQ?

Hi Dan,

It seems to me, that we disagree on a fundamental level about the MOQ.  You 
go so far to say you don't actually know why you're here. I'm here to become 
a better person by improving the patterns of my life….

The MOQ is obviously a Metaphysics.  What is Metaphysics for? To me, it is 
an intellectual construct which, depending on its quality, can help us to 
live better lives.   It does this by providing a context for *every* thing. 
With a good metaphysics like the MOQ we can compare any two things and use 
it to help us determine which is better.  Making quality decisions like this 
help us to become better people.

>>>> Is experience Dynamic Quality? Is that all experience is? I don't think 
>>>> that it is.  I think that experience includes static quality as well. 
>>>> Try as we might but we cannot avoid static quality.  To say that 
>>>> experience is only Dynamic Quality would be something a mystic would 
>>>> say.
>>>>
>>>> To a mystic, the only important thing is Dynamic Quality… The patterns 
>>>> are illusory and a distraction from DQ which is 'true experience'.  To 
>>>> a Zen Buddhist the patterns are Dukha - a distraction, cause suffering 
>>>> and not actually real. They are an attempt at capturing that which 
>>>> cannot be caught.   To a Zen Buddhist - by doing this capturing of 
>>>> things into static quality we are only going against the fundamental 
>>>> nature of all things which is Dynamic Quality.
>>>>
>>>> While MOQ agrees that trying to capture DQ with sq is indeed 
>>>> impossible - it is a fact of life and unavoidable.  Therefore, in the 
>>>> MOQ experience is both Dynamic Quality *and* static quality.  These 
>>>> patterns which we experience as a result of Dynamic Quality are not 
>>>> merely a distraction but are unavoidable, real, and with rta -  can 
>>>> actually result in better static quality.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> According to the MOQ we don't actually experience static quality. I
>>> think this excerpt might help illuminate my point here. See what you
>>> think:
>>>
>>> "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:
>>> Note he says experience comes first and every THING else comes later.
>>> There are no pre-existing patterns of value, or subjects and objects
>>> for that matter. So to say we experience both Dynamic Quality and
>>> static quality is to form a fundamental misunderstanding with the MOQ.
>>> Static quality comes after experience.
>>
>> Yes, the MOQ begins with the experience of Dynamic Quality.
>
> Dan:
> I don't see it that way. The MOQ clearly states that experience and
> Dynamic Quality are seen as synonymous. We do not experience Dynamic
> Quality. 'It' IS experience.

Yes.  And as I've said what feels like a million times.  I *agree* with you. 
Ultimately all we experience is DQ to the point where experience and DQ are 
synonymous. But if we say that's all there is - then this discussion of ours 
is pointless.  Why even talk if all there is - is DQ? These words of ours 
ruin this ultimately undefined nature of reality.   It's very easy to 
continually disagree with someone when they start talking about static 
quality on this discussion board and show them how they're wrong to talk 
about it as what's ultimate and fundamental is DQ.

But here we are. Ruining DQ…

Somehow though, you seem to to want to avoid sq and continually point to 
DQ..

You say to me that "I don't believe you are asking the right question my 
friend" and continually ask me to "See.".

This is like a Mystic who claims that the only goal to life is to escape 
from the suffering of static quality.  And you've questioned this.  But this 
is in contradiction to the final page of Lila(among others) where Pirsig 
concludes that if he had to sum up the MOQ it would be in the sentence "Good 
is a noun."   We use words and they describe qualities.   Static qualities. 
Static things which exist just as nouns do.  We cannot avoid this. So let's 
try and get quality as good as we can?

>> It is pure empiricism.  The MOQ says that the most fundamental thing or 
>> no thing we experience is Dynamic Quality.  Everything else which follows 
>> from that is static quality.  But does the MOQ say that we *only* 
>> experience Dynamic Quality?
>
> Dan:
> In my opinion you are looking at it wrongly. I tried to show you this
> earlier where I said that when one seeks to experience experience
> they're on a fool's mission. The MOQ says experience is seen as
> synonymous with Dynamic Quality. With each breaking moment we
> experience the world and then later we package it into neat little
> patterns that seem to represent experience. Of course those patterns
> can never capture experience in its fullness.
>
> So to answer your question: no. The MOQ doesn't say we only experience
> Dynamic Quality. Do we experience experience? Or do we experience the
> experience of experience? See how that goes? The MOQ says Dynamic
> Quality and experience are seen as synonymous. I don't believe you are
> asking the right question, my friend.

Here you are pointing at DQ.  I see DQ Dan.  I also see sq.  We(static 
folks) experience static quality and it exists.   Yes, static quality is 
created as a result of DQ.  Yes some thing comes from no thing.  But these 
things, like this keyboard which I type on now exist and are real and I 
experience them.  They are not imaginary or illusory as a Buddhist might 
say.

>> You seem to argue that it does and in support of this idea you offer the 
>> above LC quote which claims:
>>
>> "in the MOQ.. Experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous."
>>
>> However I can find many other examples from Lila where Pirsig claims that 
>> we also experience static quality:
>>
>> " This low quality is not just a vague, woolly-headed, crypto-religious, 
>> metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience. It is not a judgment about 
>> an experience. It is not a description of experience. The value itself is 
>> an experience. As such it is completely predictable. It is verifiable by 
>> anyone who cares to do so. It is reproducible. Of all experience it is 
>> the least ambiguous, least mistakable there is. Later the person may 
>> generate some oaths to describe this low value, but the value will always 
>> come first, the oaths second. Without the primary low valuation, the 
>> secondary oaths will not follow."
>
> Dan:
> But David, Robert Pirsig is saying the very same thing that I am. The
> value itself is experience. Later, oaths are generated to describe
> this experience, this value, but they come second. Without that
> experience there would be nothing to follow.

Right.  Is DQ low quality? Of course not.  Low quality is static quality and 
exists before the oaths. Translation - Some static quality exists before 
other static quality.

>> "This first division of the Metaphysics of Quality now covered the 
>> spectrum of experience from primitive mysticism(DQ) to quantum 
>> mechanics(inorganic patterns). What remained for Phaedrus to do next was 
>> fill in the gaps as carefully and methodically as he could."
>>
>> "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. "
>>
>> So Pirsig also explains how these two experiences of DQ and sq are 
>> different..
>>
>> "But it is not until the baby is several months old that he will begin to 
>> really understand enough about that enormously complex correlation of 
>> sensations and boundaries and desires called an object to be able to 
>> reach for one. This object will not be a primary experience. It will be a 
>> complex pattern of static values derived from primary experience(DQ)."
>>
>> Notice how he uses the word primary? It is this primary experience which 
>> is DQ but that doesn't mean that we don't experience static quality or 
>> that it is illusory as a Buddhist would say..
>
> Dan:
> I think it is good to use the qualifier 'primary' with experience to
> help illustrate what he is getting at. Note how he says: This object
> (pattern of value) will not be a primary experience. See? It is
> derived from experience. It (static quality) is a memory of
> experience, not experience itself.

Yes. You are continually pointing me towards DQ.  I can see that DQ is 
ultimately primary experience and no thing else really exists.   In fact, 
you are just telling me right back here what I said to you.  I agree with 
you that DQ is primary and all that we experience. But here we are.. Looking 
at computer screens and typing to one another and living out our static 
lives, full of static things.    These are static things and exist and are 
real and we experience them.  They come from this *primary* experience(DQ) 
but we experience these things as well.. They are as real as rocks… or so 
the expression goes.  In the MOQ we experience includes both DQ *and* sq. 
Yes sq comes from DQ but we still experience sq.  This is what I'm pointing 
towards.  An understanding of the MOQ which says that we experience DQ *and* 
static quality and they are both real and not illusory.

>>>>>> Both Zazen *and* Motorcycle Maintenance have goals, both of which are 
>>>>>> achieved not by focusing un-necessarily on the goal but by being 
>>>>>> present in the moment and doing them.  This to me is the whole point 
>>>>>> of ZMM.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> Well, if you read the introduction to ZMM, you'll see it really isn't
>>>>> about motorcycle maintenance, nor does it have much to say about zen.
>>>>> I always thought one of the points to ZMM was caring or the lack of
>>>>> it. I would hesitate to hang just one point on the book.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I would too.. I should be clearer - This to me is a *major* point 
>>>> of ZMM that (paraphrase) - 'The Buddha, the Godhead, resides just as 
>>>> happily in the circuits of a computer as it does the petals on a flower 
>>>> in the mountain top'..
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> Yes, I agree. Robert Pirsig makes a point of contrasting the
>>> technophobic tendencies of John and Cynthia with the willingness of
>>> the narrator to do his own motorcycle maintenance. Isn't all this
>>> really a matter of personal preference, however?
>>
>> No it isn't.  There is a reason why there is a huge dichotomy between 
>> those who like appearances of things and and those who like how things 
>> function..  These differences in taste are not brought about via osmosis 
>> or co-incidence.. These differences in perspective are beautifully 
>> explained in ZMM where Pirsig describes how this huge dichotomy in 
>> perspective can be traced back to Plato..
>>
>> "Plato must first resolve the internal conflict among the 
>> Truth-believers. To do this he says that Immortal Truth is not just 
>> change, as the followers of Heraclitus said. It is not just changeless 
>> being, as the followers of Parmenides said. Both these Immortal Truths 
>> coexist as Ideas, which are changeless, and Appearance, which changes. 
>> This is why Plato finds it necessary to separate, for example, 
>> "horseness" from "horse" and say that horseness is real and fixed and 
>> true and unmoving, while the horse is a mere, unimportant, transitory 
>> phenomenon. Horseness is pure Idea. The horse that one sees is a 
>> collection of changing Appearances, a horse that can flux and move around 
>> all it wants to and even die on the spot without disturbing horseness, 
>> which is the Immortal Principle and can go on forever in the path of the 
>> Gods of old."
>>
>> Classic beauty is these forms or ideas.  The Romantic beauty is the 
>> changing appearances of things.  Of course, the thing which brings these 
>> two things together and is, in fact, the creator of them both - is 
>> Quality.  In Lila Pirsig realises…
>>
>> "A particularly large amount of this time had been spent trying to lay 
>> down a first line of division between the classic and romantic aspects of 
>> the universe he'd emphasized in his first book. In that book his purpose 
>> had been to show how Quality could unite the two. But the fact that 
>> Quality was the best way of uniting the two was no guarantee that the 
>> reverse was true - that the classic-romantic split was the best way of 
>> dividing Quality. It wasn't. "
>>
>> Quality doesn't have to be divided in this way.  The reason there are 
>> these two drastically different ways of viewing the world is a cultural 
>> outcome of Plato's fundamental split between form(ideas) and 
>> substance(objects) and not simply a 'matter of personal preference'.
>
> Dan:
> Interesting. So you are saying the reason John and Cynthia didn't like
> working on motorcycles is on account of Plato? I don't know, David.
> That seems like a reach to me. I still say it is a matter of personal
> preference, or life history. But perhaps we are saying the same thing?

How is it a reach? Is it merely a reach because of the stretch of time or 
something else? Honestly, I'm not original in saying this.  I read it in 
ZMM! I take no credit for originality of thought on why John and Cynthia 
didn't like Motorcycle Maintenance.   It's right there in ZMM.  To me, this 
was one of the main points of ZMM.

>>>>>> 'Just fixing' is the same as 'Just sitting'.   The goal for both 
>>>>>> things, indeed everything, if we are to prescribe one, is to move 
>>>>>> *away* from all mechanistic static patterns.  A broken bike is a low 
>>>>>> quality very static situation… you aren't going anywhere…  Likewise 
>>>>>> someone who is beginning Zazen practice, if they are anything like 
>>>>>> me, will likely begin by being very static and constantly thinking! 
>>>>>> Tick tick tick the mind goes… But naturally the mind will wind down..
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> Left to its own devices the mind will quite naturally run amok. If
>>>>> this were not so, what would be the point of practicing zazen or
>>>>> meditation?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that is why I say that this is what occurs naturally *when* 
>>>> someone is practicing Zazen.
>>>>
>>>> So do you not agree that a major point of the book is that there is Zen 
>>>> in the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?  I describe above why I think 
>>>> they are similar.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> It depends upon who is doing the motorcycle maintenance, doesn't it? I
>>> think one of the points of ZMM was the contrast between those who make
>>> an art out of doing motorcycle maintenance and those who do not. Note
>>> that John Sutherland was an artist, a musician, and a very good one at
>>> that. And yet he had no inclination to do his own motorcycle
>>> maintenance. Was there zen in the artistry of his music? Who can say?
>>> He must have found his moment, I should think. Is there zen in the art
>>> of motorcycle maintenance? Who can say? Perhaps that's why the book is
>>> called Zen AND the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?
>>
>> Right.  Does a dog have a Buddha nature? Answer the question and you lose 
>> your own quality… You're right - it's not smart for me to say that there 
>> is Zen IN the art of anything.   But using the MOQ we can say that DQ can 
>> be found in anything if you bring yourself to this present moment and 
>> 'just do it'.
>
> Dan:
> As long as it is understood that Dynamic Quality is the breaking
> moment. It is always there so there is really nothing to be found.

Dynamic Quality isn't a 'breaking moment'.  Dynamic Quality isn't any thing. 
It's not even my saying that.  But you already know that, and if you're not 
short of something, it's pointing people like myself towards DQ. But I think 
perhaps this is why you seem to not want to say that experience includes 
both static quality and DQ because of this incorrect analogy so I'll 
repeat.. Dynamic Quality isn't the breaking moment.  Dynamic Quality isn't 
anything! It's precisely, not this, not that.  It's not even that expression 
saying so.

>> You're right - if we are not aware of it, the mind will 'run amok' and 
>> naturally keep distracting us and indeed - you will never be present in 
>> moment with what it is that you are doing… But that's not what I'm 
>> talking about.  I'm talking about 'just fixing' and 'just sitting'.  This 
>> is being aware of what we are doing and not letting the mind distract us 
>> in this way...
>>
>> "The explanation for this contradiction is the belief that you do not 
>> free yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other contrary 
>> static patterns. That is sometimes called 'bad karma chasing its tail.' 
>> You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, 
>> you master them with such proficiency that they become an unconscious 
>> part of your nature. You get so used to them you completely forget them 
>> and they are gone. There in the center of the most monotonous boredom of 
>> static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic freedom is found."
>
> Dan:
> Well, I think this pertains to ritualistic Buddhist practices and not
> so much to such rational endeavors as motorcycle maintenance. But we
> have spoken of this before…

We have and round and round and round we go.. But I think that if we care 
and we keep talking about these things, our thinking will improve and 
naturally we become better people as a result.

>>>>>> Of course, this is where I see the quote you provide below being 
>>>>>> significant...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "... Phaedrus wrote on one of his slips, "It seems clear that no 
>>>>>> mechanistic pattern exists toward which life is heading, but has the 
>>>>>> question been taken up of whether life is heading away from 
>>>>>> mechanistic patterns?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The MOQ is an answer to that question.  All *things* are moving 
>>>>>> towards DQ.  Zen recognises this and shows us how to directly 
>>>>>> experience DQ. However the MOQ differs with Zen which says that these 
>>>>>> patterns of experience are an illusion…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The word “I” like the word “self” is one of the trickiest words in 
>>>>>> any metaphysics. Sometimes it is an object, a human body; sometimes 
>>>>>> it is a subject, a human mind. I believe there are number of 
>>>>>> philosophic systems, notably Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism,” that call the 
>>>>>> “I” or “individual” the central reality. Buddhists say it is an 
>>>>>> illusion. So do scientists. The MOQ says it is a collection of static 
>>>>>> patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality." - LC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in other words in the MOQ (unlike Zen where the patterns are 
>>>>>> illusory) the patterns quality is valued.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> Well, it may be a matter of semantics but Buddhism doesn't say the
>>>>> patterns are an illusion... the self is seen as an illusion. So far as
>>>>> I know Buddhism has nothing to say about patterns of quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> The MOQ, on the other hand, has lots to say about patterns of quality.
>>>>> I haven't seen where it says patterns are an illusion, nor have I seen
>>>>> where it says they are not an illusion. I think that might be the
>>>>> wrong way to approach the MOQ. For instance, a thought can be an
>>>>> illusion but it is still a pattern of value.
>>>>
>>>> You agree that Buddhism says that the self is an illusion.. So we're 
>>>> clear here this is the definition of an illusion..
>>>>
>>>> noun
>>>> 1.
>>>> something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression 
>>>> of reality.
>>>> 2.
>>>> the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension.
>>>> 3.
>>>> an instance of being deceived.
>>>>
>>>> The MOQ categorises the self as a "collection of static patterns 
>>>> capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality."   If Buddhism claims that the 
>>>> self (static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality) is 
>>>> illusory then unless you say that static patterns can exist without the 
>>>> humans who created them(they can't) then Buddhism claims that static 
>>>> patterns are illusory.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> I suspect the Buddhist conception of self is different than the MOQ.
>>> Don't you think so too?
>>
>> No. Just as I think the colour blue is the same in the USA as the colour 
>> blue in France and all monotheistic religions are describing the same 
>> God.
>
> Dan:
> I think this contradicts the notion that culture dictates what we take
> from experience. Remember the green flash of the sun in Lila? And how
> Phaedrus had wondered why he had never seen a green sun? And then he
> read a book on yachting and it told him to look for it? And when he
> did, he saw a green sun?

Yes I remember.  But translations don't include caveats that the french word 
for 'blue' actually means a different blue than the english 'blue'.  Our 
words all describe the same thing. If they didn't, translation, however 
approximate, wouldn't be possible.

>
>> The self in Buddhism is the same dictionary definition self as the self 
>> in the MOQ.
>
> Dan:
> Really! Buddhism is 2500 years old. It began long before any
> dictionary existed. Still, let's look and see:
>
> self:
>
> 1. the distinct individuality or identity of a person or thing
> 2. a person's usual or typical bodily make-up or personal
> characteristics: she looked her old self again
> 3. rare good self , good selves  a polite way of referring to or
> addressing a person (or persons), used following your, his, her,  or
> their
> 4. one's own welfare or interests: he only thinks of self
> 5. an individual's consciousness of his own identity or being
> 6. philosophy the self  that which is essential to an individual, esp
> the mind or soul in Cartesian metaphysics; the ego
> 7. a bird, animal, etc, that is a single colour throughout, esp a
> self-coloured pigeon [dictionary.com]
>
> If Buddhism sees the self as an illusion then how do you reconcile
> that with these definitions? I see nothing here to indicate that the
> self is an illusion.

Me either.  That's why in Buddhism it's necessary to say that the 'small 
self in an illusion' rather than just say the word 'self'.

>>>> This is projection but what good is a Metaphysics if you can't project 
>>>> it onto things and interpret what others are saying in a coherent, 
>>>> better way?   That's the whole point of a Metaphysics;  to categorise 
>>>> things fundamentally and put them in perspective in order to live a 
>>>> good life.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> If it works, sure.
>>
>> It works if it's good.  And it's good to see experience as including both 
>> Dynamic Quality *and* static quality.
>
> Dan:
> It would depend on how one defines experience, would it not? Since we
> are using the MOQ, it seems better to define it as synonymous with
> Dynamic Quality. Static quality emerges from experience.

Static quality emerges from experience of DQ. Yes. I don't disagree. BUT we 
can add that some static quality experiences other static quality. Like the 
city of Los Angeles experiencing an earthquake.  Or Dan Glover experiencing 
my writing now.  Static qualities interact with and value one another and 
these static values are a part of experience.

>>>>>>>>>> I think that we don't need an end point before we ask why.  As 
>>>>>>>>>> the title of this post suggests, I think that every thing has a 
>>>>>>>>>> why including Zazen. The reason is that we can always ask - Why 
>>>>>>>>>> does x exist? That's about as fundamental a question as you can 
>>>>>>>>>> ask.  But that's not how all why's come to us.   One of the first 
>>>>>>>>>> things we empirically experience is a certain level of quality. 
>>>>>>>>>> If the level of quality is low, such as with a broken motorcycle, 
>>>>>>>>>> we will ask, 'why is the motorcycle broken?'.   In other words - 
>>>>>>>>>> we don't need an end point to ask this question!  The point is 
>>>>>>>>>> that we are moving *Away* from the low static quality situation 
>>>>>>>>>> and towards some undefined betterness.  It is this movement away 
>>>>>>>>>> from static quality and towards DQ that can be found as the goal 
>>>>>>>>>> of all things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> I can see that, sure. I would say though that the stilling of the
>>>>>>>>> internal discursive voice continually running through one's head 
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> no why, no end point. The whys exist within that internal 
>>>>>>>>> discursive
>>>>>>>>> voice as it stutters the world into existence. When that voice 
>>>>>>>>> stops,
>>>>>>>>> the whys of world stop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, and so what we can do with that inner voice thanks to the MOQ 
>>>>>>>> is designate the stopping of the mind an intellectual symbol - 
>>>>>>>> "Dynamic Quality" - and use those words to intellectually represent 
>>>>>>>> the stopping of the mind.  Without the words 'Dynamic Quality' the 
>>>>>>>> MOQ would be much poorer as a result.   That's why I disagree and 
>>>>>>>> say that the voice does have an end point during meditation; an end 
>>>>>>>> point which is called Dynamic Quality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> I suppose one could call it anything they like but they would still 
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> incorrect in naming it. I know Dynamic Quality is used in Lila as a
>>>>>>> reference to neither this nor that. To introduce any symbol is a
>>>>>>> mistake, in my opinion. Dynamic Quality is an intellectual 
>>>>>>> construct,
>>>>>>> not an end point to meditation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dynamic Quality is an intellectual construct the same as trees are an 
>>>>>> intellectual construct the same as human beings are an intellectual 
>>>>>> construct the same as books are an intellectual construct…  All 
>>>>>> things are intellectual constructs - including Dynamic Quality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore the end point to meditation is Dynamic Quality.  This 
>>>>>> statement is mystically degenerate but intellectually valuable. If 
>>>>>> you don't want to talk about the static quality intellectual 
>>>>>> constructs of static quality and Dynamic Quality then your presence 
>>>>>> on this forum is very peculiar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> You seem to be saying the endpoint of meditation is experience. Yes?
>>>>> And perhaps my presence here is peculiar. I hadn't planned on
>>>>> returning but here I am. I find that a bit peculiar myself.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Well how do you see the difference between Zen and the MOQ? Are 
>>>> they the same thing to you?
>>> Dan:
>>> I would say there is no endpoint to meditation. It may or may not
>>> bring us closer to experience depending upon the ability of the
>>> practitioner but that is not an endpoint. Experience is like a river
>>> always flowing from here to there. It has no endpoint.
>>>
>>> The MOQ does have an endpoint. It is a metaphysics for ordering our
>>> experience but it is not experience. Robert Pirsig says that writing a
>>> metaphysics is a degenerate activity. Is zen a degenerate activity
>>> too?
>>
>> I agree with this - if we create a distinction between experience and 
>> primary experience and say..
>>
>> "It is a metaphysics for ordering our experience but it is not primary 
>> experience."
>
> Dan:
> I don't think that is necessary as long as we go along with the notion
> that in the MOQ, Dynamic Quality and experience are seen as
> synonymous. A metaphysics cannot be primary experience. That is a
> given in that it is a collection of intellectual patterns of value.

We experience a metaphysics. That metaphysics, like all things, has come 
about as a result of primary experience.  Where's the contradiction?

>> But also I'm not so sure that we agree on the endpoint of the MOQ. I 
>> think the 'endpoint' of the MOQ is its eventual replacement by some 
>> better thing…  Which end-point are you referring to?
>
> Dan:
> The endpoint of agreeing with the MOQ.

That's the endpoint? How strange.  I agree with the MOQ but I feel like the 
MOQ is only just beginning...

>>>>>>>>> Now, with such matters as a malfunctioning bike we need that 
>>>>>>>>> endpoint
>>>>>>>>> in order to understand the why. I mean, if we are to fix it, of
>>>>>>>>> course. We can berate the bike, calling it names and kicking it. 
>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>> could just throw up our hands and say the hell with it, park it in 
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> garage, and let it rust for the next 30 years. We could bring it 
>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>> mechanic who will rationally determine the why of the malfunction 
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> work towards the endpoint of fixing it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Likening this to one's own life, we can see how people mirror 
>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>> activities. They can blame the world for the dilemma they find
>>>>>>>>> themselves mired in, or their parents, or The Man, or any other 
>>>>>>>>> entity
>>>>>>>>> that seemingly has it out for them. Or they can take the 
>>>>>>>>> initiative to
>>>>>>>>> understand their own faults and work toward the endpoint of 
>>>>>>>>> resolving
>>>>>>>>> those issues. Or they can park themselves in front of a tv, drink 
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> case of beer each night, and vegetate their lives away. Or they 
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> seek professional help such as therapists and counselors who 
>>>>>>>>> dedicate
>>>>>>>>> their lives to sorting out the troubles of others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right I see how they are both the same thing..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But sometimes, for me at least, it will be because the quality of a 
>>>>>>>> situation is low and it is a matter of determining what is wrong so 
>>>>>>>> that I can get out of that bad situation. We might say that getting 
>>>>>>>> out of that bad situation is the goal but there is no real goal 
>>>>>>>> that I am following other than following some sorta undefined 
>>>>>>>> 'betterness'.  To do this I might question the situation to try and 
>>>>>>>> re-adjust my current understanding of the situation to see which of 
>>>>>>>> my original assumptions might be wrong.  This makes me think of the 
>>>>>>>> Brujo example…
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "If you had asked the brujo what ethical principles he was 
>>>>>>>> following he probably wouldn't have been able to tell you. He 
>>>>>>>> wouldn't have understood what you were talking about. He was just 
>>>>>>>> following some vague sense of 'betterness' that he couldn't have 
>>>>>>>> defined if he had wanted to."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Brujo doesn't have a why for what he is doing. He is just 
>>>>>>>> following some sort of undefined betterness. We can ascribe whys to 
>>>>>>>> what he is doing but doing so would be an after thought and not 
>>>>>>>> what is actually driving him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> Ah. This is true. And yes, to follow undefined betterness while
>>>>>>> working on a motorcycle is a viable option when one becomes stuck on 
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> problem. An artful mechanic might even seem like a brujo to the
>>>>>>> uninitiated, a worker of magic, conjuring solutions out of nothing.
>>>>>>> What is driving the mechanic, though, is an endpoint, a solution to
>>>>>>> why the bike isn't running or running properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can attribute that drive to what the mechanic is doing.. but as we 
>>>>>> agreed, what the artful mechanic does is follow undefined betterness 
>>>>>> and not a specific goal at all..  I disagree with you that the goal 
>>>>>> is 'driving him'.  What is driving the artful mechanic is the same as 
>>>>>> what is driving all things - it is this moving *away* from this low 
>>>>>> quality static situation where he is stuck with a broken bike and 
>>>>>> towards this undefined betterness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> Then how does he fix the bike? Not sure I would want someone working
>>>>> on my bike if they were simply following some undefined betterness.
>>>>> The kid at the bike shop who starting chiseling and hammering on the
>>>>> narrator's bike engine in ZMM probably thought he was following some
>>>>> kind of undefined betterness. Was he?
>>>>
>>>> No. He wasn't.  As is espoused in ZMM - the flip side to Quality is 
>>>> caring.  The kid didn't care about the machine or his job.  If he cared 
>>>> and then tried to do a good job - this would be reflected in his work.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> But he was trying. He showed up for work. He must have impressed his
>>> superior as a person who could be trusted to work on motorcycles,
>>> right? Perhaps he found himself stuck and to use a hammer and chisel
>>> seemed better even though if you asked him why he couldn't answer you.
>>> Wasn't he following a kind of undefined betterness?
>>
>>> Dan also:
>>> My point about the kid in the motorcycle shop was that if he had been
>>> following a rational method of motorcycle maintenance he would know
>>> beating on an engine with a hammer and chisel is not a good thing.
>>> Instead, he seemed to be following an undefined method of what was
>>> better.
>>
>> Yes - he was following an "undefined betterness" in that it wasn't 
>> intellectual.. He was just 'grooving on it' with the radio in background 
>> and not really caring about fixing the machine.  Or in the lingo of ZMM - 
>> he was a romantic doing a classical thing.  Bike fixing includes 
>> intellectual values and this kid didn't seem interested in or care for 
>> them at all.   What the kid seemed more interested in was the biological 
>> value of the music on the radio in the background and the social value of 
>> horsing around with his co-worker.   These things are not DQ.
>
> Dan:
> All things emerge from Dynamic Quality, yes. So things are not Dynamic
> Quality. And if the MOQ sees Dynamic Quality as synonymous with
> experience then it seems clear that we do not experience things, or
> static quality. Those things, those patterns of value, emerge from
> experience. They are secondary to it.

Right. And perhaps I should highlight it here so that you stop arguing with 
a straw man.. I AGREE WITH YOU HERE. My point is that a better distinction 
can be made(as it is in the MOQ) between our experience of Dynamic Quality 
being *primary* experience and our experience of everyday ordinary events 
like typing on a computer as simply an experience.

> The kid was a moron that had no business working on his own bike, much
> less a bike for someone else. Whoever hired him must have been either
> intoxicated or his father, or both. Again, my point was that he was
> working on bikes without regard to the rationality of doing so.
> Motorcycle maintenance is a rational activity, not a mystical one.

Right.  For whatever reason, he didn't value or care about intellectual 
patterns.  We can both agree on that.

>> In other words - DQ isn't just non-intellectual values like this kid 
>> seemed to think..   He had confused DQ with biological and social values 
>> and thus had neglected the importance of the intellectual values which 
>> were right in front of him every day he did his job..   The real way he 
>> frees himself from these intellectual values though, isn't by pretending 
>> they don't exist.  It's by caring for them and mastering them to the 
>> point he 'forgets' they even exist at all.
>
> Dan:
> Well, I doubt the kid had heard of Dynamic Quality as ZMM was written
> before Lila. I don't think he had any idea about biological values or
> anything like that. He was just a moron.

Do you need an idea of 'biological values' to follow biological values? Does 
a dog need an idea of 'biological values' to pee against a tree?  Your 
hesitancy to apply the MOQ to the everyday approaches comical proportions 
here..

>>>>>>>>>>>> The question of why can have an intellectual but also a DQ 
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> Would that be a non-answer?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A DQ answer as I explained above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> A Dynamic Quality answer is not this, not that. It isn't rational.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An 'actual' Dynamic Quality answer is 'not this, not that' yes. 
>>>>>>>> But even those words are not Dynamic Quality.  So really the words 
>>>>>>>> 'Dynamic Quality' are an intellectual designation used in the MOQ 
>>>>>>>> to denote what Dynamic Quality is.  This is degeneracy yes, but the 
>>>>>>>> person who doesn't ruin the world with fixed metaphysical meanings 
>>>>>>>> is a person who doesn't exist and to who no thought has been given.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> Yes, it isn't rational…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be clear Dynamic Quality is not just things which aren't 
>>>>>> rational.. Dynamic Quality isn't any thing including things which 
>>>>>> aren't rational.  It isn't even an intellectual construct but we use 
>>>>>> these words to degeneratively create an intellectual metaphysics 
>>>>>> which beautifully matches our experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> I would say the MOQ orders experience in a better way than
>>>>> subject/object metaphysics. It doesn't match our experience though. No
>>>>> static quality construct can do that.
>>>>
>>>> That depends on what you call 'experience'.  Is experience just Dynamic 
>>>> Quality? I think that experience can be both Dynamic Quality and static 
>>>> quality depending on the experience..  Often we can distinguish between 
>>>> the two by saying that Dynamic Quality is *direct* experience and 
>>>> static patterns of experience are created as a result of this direct 
>>>> experience.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> As I said earlier, in the MOQ experience comes first. Experience is
>>> seen as synonymous with Dynamic Quality. Static quality emerges from
>>> experience. Static quality isn't some pre-existing set of patterns
>>> waiting to be experienced. Think of the hot stove example in Lila.
>>> Should a person sit upon a hot stove it isn't the heat that gets them
>>> off the stove. It is a dim apprehension of they know not what. It is
>>> only later that they label it heat and cuss about it.
>>
>> Right.  DQ is primary(as Pirsig would say) experience.  A mystic would 
>> get off the hot stove faster than a scientist.  But that's not to say 
>> that the experiences of a scientist when he looks at inorganic particles 
>> under a microscope are un-real or not experienced either.
>
> Dan:
> As soon as experience is relegated to static quality pattens it is no
> longer experience. It is a memory of experience.

Until we 'experience' those memories as intellectual patterns of value.  Or 
are you going to tell me we don't experience intellectual patterns of value?

We experience static quality. If we didn't experience static quality then it 
isn't a stretch to say that it doesn't really exist.   And then it isn't 
really a stretch to want to continually point to DQ and want to avoid 
applying the MOQ to everyday life because 'it is about things we don't 
really experience anyway….' And of course, this is what you continually want 
to do. Please try and see the quality of another perspective..

>>>>>>>>>>>> All static things including meditation can be questioned.  That 
>>>>>>>>>>>> is not their goal but they can all be questioned with a 'why?' 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Zen does have a why whose answer is DQ. That's what Koans are 
>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't they?  What about sitting without Koans? Why do we sit? 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't we find the answer to this question by sitting?  In this 
>>>>>>>>>>>> regard, Zen doesn't ignore the role of the intellect but it's 
>>>>>>>>>>>> goal is not intellectual. It shows us how to 'overcome' the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> intellect by putting it to sleep.  The same *can* be true for 
>>>>>>>>>>>> motorcycle maintenance.   Through mastery of motorcycle 
>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance we can put the intellect to sleep as well. In fact 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the mastery of it.  When it goes to sleep we go 'aha' 
>>>>>>>>>>>> and we have a breakthrough and discover what is actually wrong 
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> When an artful mechanic acts they do so by thinking to fulfill 
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>> inadequacy in the machine they are fixing. A mystic through 
>>>>>>>>>>> non-action
>>>>>>>>>>> reveals the world without thought. What you seem to be asking 
>>>>>>>>>>> is: can
>>>>>>>>>>> they be one and the same? I would say it is possible but 
>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful
>>>>>>>>>>> while another person might say it is very likely. I suspect we 
>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>> both be both right and wrong... probably at the same time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't like that answer as it is non-intellectual.  I like 
>>>>>>>>>> philosophy because it attempts, however badly or well it might do 
>>>>>>>>>> so, to capture the impossible and give some intellectual meaning 
>>>>>>>>>> to our existence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> What if the only meaning to existence is to be free of existence?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the viewpoint of Zen. But I am not a Zen Buddhist so I 
>>>>>>>> don't fully agree with that.  As I've said and is explained in 
>>>>>>>> Lila, we are alive, and being alive we can't help but ruin the 
>>>>>>>> ultimately undefined nature of the universe with fixed metaphysical 
>>>>>>>> meanings.  Picking up bar ladies and writings metaphysics are a 
>>>>>>>> part of life.  So as we're alive and ruining this ultimately 
>>>>>>>> undefinable nature of the universe, we might as well get these 
>>>>>>>> definitions of ours as good as we can!  One of those definitions is 
>>>>>>>> saying that Dynamic Quality exists and the meaning to existence is 
>>>>>>>> to both experience Dynamic Quality *and* improve quality of things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> Actually I was thinking of this quote from Lila:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "... Phaedrus wrote on one of his slips, "It seems clear that no
>>>>>>> mechanistic pattern exists toward which life is heading, but has the
>>>>>>> question been taken up of whether life is heading away from
>>>>>>> mechanistic patterns?" [Lila]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the MOQ sees Dynamic Quality as synonymous with experience to
>>>>>>> say we experience Dynamic Quality is a bit of a misnomer. Since 
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> is no mechanistic pattern toward which our existence is leading, 
>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>> it better to question if it is heading away from it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right.  But as I mention above, we are doing more than just moving 
>>>>>> away from these static patterns..  We are also creating static 
>>>>>> patterns as a result of experiencing DQ and these are not illusory as 
>>>>>> the Buddhists say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> I see you saying we experience experience. Is that what you mean? But
>>>>> what does that mean? Also, I find it confusing when you say the
>>>>> Buddhists claim static patterns are an illusion. I should think the
>>>>> MOQ states that we are a collection of static patterns of value but
>>>>> these patterns are provisional. They only work until something better
>>>>> comes along. Buddhists have nothing to say about patterns of value,
>>>>> however.
>>>>
>>>> The Buddhists have nothing to say about patterns of value because the 
>>>> MOQ was created long after Buddhism existed.   However, we can use the 
>>>> MOQ to describe what Zen Buddhists are saying in a beautiful way….
>>>>
>>>> Try this example from RMP in LC:
>>>>
>>>> "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.
>>>>
>>>> So using the MOQ we can say that the small self of Zen Buddhism is the 
>>>> patterns.  Thus as we know, in Zen Buddhism, the small self is an 
>>>> illusion which is to be overcome by Zen practice and reveal the Big 
>>>> self which is there all along.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> So you are saying the patterns like the self are an illusion.
>>
>> I am saying that according to Zen Buddhism they are yes.  In the MOQ the 
>> small self exists and we call this small self -  static patterns of 
>> value.
>
> Dan:
> That is why I don't think it is good to mix metaphors.

Well you disagree then with both myself and Robert Pirsig here...

>>>>>>>> Discovering this answer by the emptying out of the mind… Is this 
>>>>>>>> really a rational activity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> Absolutely. One steeps the mind in the problem, considering every
>>>>>>> angle, every possible solution, and then just sets the problem 
>>>>>>> aside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rational:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> adjective1.
>>>>>> agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for 
>>>>>> economic development.
>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>> having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm 
>>>>>> and rational negotiator.
>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>> being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; 
>>>>>> lucid: The patient appeared perfectlyrational.
>>>>>> 4.
>>>>>> endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
>>>>>> 5.
>>>>>> of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational 
>>>>>> faculty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is rational activity to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> The dictionary definitions work for me.
>>>>>
>>>>>> To me it is intellectual activity…  Intellectually deciding to set 
>>>>>> the problem aside, and following though on that decision - is to no 
>>>>>> longer rationally think about that problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> But the act of setting aside the problem is agreeable to reason, is it
>>>>> not? It is exercising sound judgement, is it not? Doesn't it pertain
>>>>> to rational faculty? Rather than beating one's head against a
>>>>> seemingly intractable problem it is sometimes better to set it aside.
>>>>> This is a rational decision, is it not?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. The decision making to do that is intellectual as I say above… But 
>>>> also as I say above - *following through on that decision - is to no 
>>>> longer rationally think about the problem*.  There is a doing which is 
>>>> non-intellectual and non-rational. It's before all intellectual 
>>>> distinction..
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> Well, actually it is after the intellectual distinction, is it not?
>>> Otherwise there would be no distinction.
>>
>> *I have a thought*. Now is it impossible for me to ever experience DQ?
>
> Dan:
> You don't experience Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality is seen as
> synonymous with experience. Do you experience experience? No.
> Experience comes first and then thoughts emerge.

That's right. And included in those thoughts are the thoughts of mine which 
say that I exist. These thoughts also say that because I exist, this means 
that I experience and can respond to something we have intellectually 
designated with the name - Dynamic Quality.   This is called the deductive 
power of the MOQ.

>> But if I say that we can experience DQ after we experience sq then that 
>> seems to be a contradiction - for DQ is the source of all things. But it 
>> is not a contradiction when we realise that the term DQ itself is a 
>> contradiction.  The reason why we use this term 'Dynamic Quality' is to 
>> intellectually value it and place it within a metaphysics which closely 
>> resembles our experience.  Included in resembling our experience is 
>> saying that we can experience *both* DQ and sq.
>
> Dan:
> You seem to be making Dynamic Quality into a kind of object or pattern
> of value that can be experienced. But objects and patterns of value
> are secondary to experience. If it helps someone to understand this,
> then by all means use the term primary experience. But once it is
> understood that experience and Dynamic Quality are seen as synonymous
> in the MOQ there is no reason to qualify experience in such a way. I
> think it confuses the issue.

Well naturally here I disagree. I think it confuses the issue to only 
relegate experience to be synonymous with Dynamic Quality and that's it.  DQ 
is primary experience yes.  But we still experience every other thing which 
isn't DQ. This is why Pirsig saw it necessary to create a static 
Metaphysics.  If we don't experience sq, what does it matter? It doesn't. 
This is what a mystic will say and on this point they are somewhat wrong. 
The reason why static quality matters is because we cannot avoid it. While 
ultimately we primarily only experience DQ -  pretending that is *all* we 
experience is wrong. There is this whole other unavoidable world of picking 
and choosing which exists whether a mystic likes it or not.   Good is a 
noun. So we might as well get our picking and choosing as good as we 
possibly can.

>>>>>>>> Is it rationally following the steps of logical induction and 
>>>>>>>> deduction to arrive at how to solve the problem.  As you admit, 
>>>>>>>> these can be exhausted and still no solution presents itself. This 
>>>>>>>> is where it motorcycle maintenance becomes very much an art.  Some 
>>>>>>>> can give in and say it's not fixable, or others might start to try 
>>>>>>>> and fix something which isn't broken.  But art is more than this. 
>>>>>>>> Art is high quality endeavour. Art is being a good motorcycle 
>>>>>>>> mechanic and caring for the machine. Motorcycle maintenance is more 
>>>>>>>> than a rational activity.  Rationality will get you only part of 
>>>>>>>> the way there. Having 'great peace of mind' before you begin the 
>>>>>>>> maintenance is not part of logical rationality but it is necessary 
>>>>>>>> to be an artful mechanic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> I disagree. Peace of mind can be cultivated. It isn't something that
>>>>>>> appears magically of its own accord. When one finds oneself drifting
>>>>>>> away from the center, it is best to bring awareness back into focus.
>>>>>>> There is nothing mystical about it. It is a rational activity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peace of mind can indeed be cultivated.. The cultivation of peace of 
>>>>>> mind is indeed achieved by bringing awareness back into focus.. I 
>>>>>> disagree though that there isn't anything mystical about it or that 
>>>>>> it is exclusively a rational activity just as you seem to agree 
>>>>>> below… The mystical aspect is the bringing oneself back to the 
>>>>>> present moment and to what you are doing.. This is not rationally 
>>>>>> thinking about the problem necessarily - sometimes it is just staring 
>>>>>> at the machine..
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> To be in touch with the moment may seem mystical to the uninitiated
>>>>> just as a thunder stick must have seemed mystical to the early Native
>>>>> Americans who first encountered Europeans. Experience is just
>>>>> experience. That doesn't mean it is entirely rational, however.
>>>>
>>>> Over and again in Lila Pirsig repeatedly associates mysticism to the 
>>>> MOQ and Dynamic Quality…
>>>>
>>>> "The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called 
>>>> 'Quality' in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality 
>>>> doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead 
>>>> of definition. Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior 
>>>> to intellectual abstractions."
>>>>
>>>> " But mystic learning goes in the opposite direction and tries to hold 
>>>> to the ongoing Dynamic edge of all experience, both positive and 
>>>> negative, even the Dynamic ongoing edge of thought itself. Phaedrus 
>>>> thought that of the two kinds of students, those who study only 
>>>> subject-object science and those who study only meditative mysticism, 
>>>> it would be the mystic students who would get off the stove first. The 
>>>> purpose of mystic meditation is not to remove oneself from experience 
>>>> but to bring one's self closer to it by eliminating stale, confusing, 
>>>> static, intellectual attachments of the past."
>>>>
>>>> "The Metaphysics of Quality identifies religious mysticism with Dynamic 
>>>> Quality. It says the subject-object people are almost right when they 
>>>> identify religious mysticism with insanity. The two are almost the 
>>>> same. Both lunatics and mystics have freed themselves from the 
>>>> conventional static intellectual patterns of their culture. The only 
>>>> difference is that the lunatic has shifted over to a private static 
>>>> pattern of his own, whereas the mystic has abandoned all static 
>>>> patterns in favor of pure Dynamic Quality."
>>>>
>>>> "The Metaphysics of Quality associates religious mysticism with Dynamic 
>>>> Quality.."
>>>>
>>>> Mysticism isn't a bad word Dan.  The MOQ is fundamentally mysticism. 
>>>> But it differs from religious mysticism where mysticism says that the 
>>>> static patterns are an illusion.  The static patterns of the MOQ are a 
>>>> result of this fundamentally mystic reality and are not illusory.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> I think you may be contradicting yourself here. Earlier you said the
>>> patterns like the self are an illusion. Now you say they are not. Be
>>> that as it may, I am not saying mysticism is a bad word. Where did you
>>> get that notion? Because I said motorcycle maintenance is a rational
>>> activity and not a mystical one? It seems obvious that RMP agrees when
>>> he says the central reality of mysticism is not a metaphysical chess
>>> piece. There is no manual for it. One will not learn to fix a
>>> motorcycle by relying on mysticism.
>>>
>>> Since it seeks to define reality it seems clear that the MOQ is not
>>> fundamentally a mystic endeavor. It is a rational endeavor. As RMP
>>> says, it goes against the mystic notion that experience cannot be
>>> defined. But like the fatty who can't stay out of the frig he goes
>>> ahead and does it anyway.
>>
>> No, one will not learn to fix a bike by relying on mysticism(DQ) alone. 
>> Of course, there are intellectual values and biological values of 
>> movement involved in fixing the bike and indeed - the inorganic bike 
>> itself..  But that is how one fixes a bike. By *following* that DQ which 
>> is there all along.
>
> Dan:
> If you mean by following the experience of fixing bikes, maybe. The
> kid chiseling away at the narrator's bike engine was probably doing
> just that, however. I would prefer the mechanic working on my machine
> went about it in a rational manner. Wouldn't you? How about the
> airline mechanic working on the jet you are about to fly in 30,000
> feet high over the ocean? Wouldn't it be better that they were
> rationally trained in the latest technology?

Yes.  Rationality is important.

>>>>>>>>> This too though is a rational activity.
>>>>>>>>> One has purposely set aside the work until it is time to work 
>>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I purposely set aside time to sit in meditation.  Is meditation for 
>>>>>>>> me now a rational activity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> That depends. Do you have a goal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the static quality goal of experiencing DQ. But as soon as I sit 
>>>>>> and say.. "I am here to experience DQ." Then I won't ever experience 
>>>>>> DQ. This is why the 'goal' of meditation is really 'no goal'..  This 
>>>>>> contradiction is explained by the gateless gate.. From a static 
>>>>>> quality everyday perspective the gate is the goal.. But once you 
>>>>>> experience the goal you realise that there is no goal because the 
>>>>>> goal is the source of all things..  This same experience can be found 
>>>>>> when we achieve many different goals..  However the results of our 
>>>>>> toils is less apparent when we sit.  This is because all we have been 
>>>>>> doing is perfecting something as simple as sitting and not trying to 
>>>>>> master our maintenance of a bike which, all going well, would result 
>>>>>> in a fixed bike and the art which produced it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> So you see, a goal to experience experience is a fool's goal.
>>>>> Experience is right here! You already experience! In order to repair a
>>>>> bike one must be rationally aware of the steps involved in such a
>>>>> process, otherwise they are a fool attempting the impossible just as
>>>>> the person who sits in meditation attempting to experience experience.
>>>>
>>>> As mentioned previously - I think there is a difference between 
>>>> following the steps to repair a bike when you know what the problem is 
>>>> and determining the problem with the bike.   In this regard just 
>>>> sitting is no different to just fixing..   Sure, there are rational 
>>>> components to fixing a bike which aren't part of sitting once the 
>>>> problem has been diagnosed but, as any good mechanic will tell you, 
>>>> this isn't the hard part of fixing a bike..
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> I am not sure how familiar you are with today's machines but they
>>> actually tell a mechanic what is wrong with them. All one need do is
>>> hook the machine up to a scanner or code reader and it will tell the
>>> mechanic where the problem resides.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, older machines do require a diagnosis by the
>>> mechanic. Still, this requires a mechanic to follow a rational set of
>>> actions, such as testing the components, checking the manual, asking
>>> other mechanics for advice, etc. And yes it is very difficult
>>> sometimes to figure out the problem. Key word, figure. Think.
>>
>> Right. It involves the intellect. But the intellect alone cannot fix a 
>> bike.  It is DQ which creates the intellectual values of the mechanic. 
>> When the mechanic has exhausted all intellectual options and is stuck, if 
>> he is aware - it will be DQ which guides him out of his stuckness.  DQ 
>> creates all things including all thoughts which a mechanic has about how 
>> to fix the broken bike.
>
> Dan:
> Experience is the magical word here. Experience creates all things.
> Experience guides him out of his stuckness. Everything else is
> secondary, including intellect.

Experience of what? Dynamic Quality or static quality? Dynamic Quality 
guides him out of his stuckness not 'experience' which could be experience 
of static quality or DQ.

>>>>>>>>> The mystic on the other hand strives to set aside thought. Working 
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> koan has nothing to do with rationality. A typical Westerner may 
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> that working a koan is the same as thinking about it but that 
>>>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>>>> so. Even if the practitioner takes on a koan in a rational way it 
>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>> becomes apparent that there is nothing rational about it. So they
>>>>>>>>> either give up or give in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right. But is that rational activity not a part of the discovering 
>>>>>>>> process of the answer for the koan.  As you say, we will rationally 
>>>>>>>> try and answer it and try and try, and until we give up(not good), 
>>>>>>>> or give in.  But give in to what? To DQ? Isn't that the whole point 
>>>>>>>> of the Koan? Koans point you to that place where you cannot 
>>>>>>>> rationally solve something.  But in order to understand that you 
>>>>>>>> must be rational to begin with.. see?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> Dynamic Quality is synonymous with experience. We cover 'it' up with
>>>>>>> thought. So thinking about a koan will only take one away, not bring
>>>>>>> one closer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that is so then why have koans? Why do they exist? Aren't they 
>>>>>> just a distraction?  I don't think that they are. I think they are 
>>>>>> there to be thought about..  They point to that non rational place 
>>>>>> where you can't solve anything..  Think and think and think about 
>>>>>> them but they have no immediate answer… Like sitting, the mind will 
>>>>>> start on them at a great pace thinking about how to solve the riddle. 
>>>>>> What becomes more and more apparent by thinking about them though, is 
>>>>>> that the answer to this riddle is not rational and one will become 
>>>>>> more and more acquainted with what is the source of this riddle - DQ.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> I don't know why there are koans. I should think some zen master in
>>>>> the past thought there was some value to them but I don't know for
>>>>> sure. If one thinks about solving a koan they are only covering up
>>>>> that for which they seek, in my opinion. But that was my point. There
>>>>> is no need for koans. They are a crutch, a tool, a method of pointing
>>>>> to that which cannot be pointed to, I suppose. Once used they are
>>>>> discarded as unnecessary accoutrements.
>>>>
>>>> So you don't know why there are Koans but at the same time you 
>>>> recognise that they are a tool and a method of pointing to that which 
>>>> cannot be pointed to?
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> Well, as I said, that is what I suppose. Whether they are or not, I
>>> don't really know.
>>
>> Okay. Well I agree with you and think that they are a tool and a method 
>> of pointing to that which cannot be pointed to.  They show point to DQ 
>> with the intellect by showing that it is not intellectual.
>
> Dan:
> Experience is not intellectual until later. Then it is no longer
> experience. It is a memory of experience.

Unless of course we experience intellectual values. Like the intellectual 
values we are discussing now - or are you going to tell me we don't 
experience them? I get it. There's nothing but DQ. But that's not the whole 
story and this is supported by the MOQ and written about by Pirsig

Thanks Dan,

Also, I would like to re-iterate here that I really appreciate our 
discussions.  I can't state that enough!

Thanks Again,

-David.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html