[MD] Is experience just DQ?

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:53 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Existence and experience.
>
> Do you exist? Do you experience things?
>
> From your past responses I can only assume that you would say that I am asking the wrong question when I ask if you experience things?

Dan:
I would say there are better questions to ask. You seem to be asking
if I exist independently of these things I experience. You'll go on to
say this is a high quality idea. But there may be higher quality
ideas.

>
> You would charge me with saying that I'm assuming that there is a 'Dan' which exists before DQ that is synonymous with experience..
>
> But I think that we can assume in the MOQ that things exist and are experienced..  This is a large part of the explanatory power of the MOQ..

Dan:
I would say in the everyday world of subject/object thinking that
there are things that exist and are experienced. We all know that
already so where is the value of the MOQ in this assumption? The MOQ
offers a more expanded view of rationality not by claiming we exist
independently of the objects we experience but by saying there is no
self independent of these patterns.

>
> Here's an exchange of ours which I think gets to the heart of the matter:
>
>>> Ultimately they do.. But what about objects?  Isn't it sometimes a good idea to say they exist before we experience them?
>>
>> Dan:
>> How would we know? Isn't that an assumption rooted in the premise that
>> objects exist separately and apart from our observation of them?
>
> Your reluctance to go along with this assumption shows that you see little value in the strength of SOM..  But then to contradict this Pirsig says..
>
> "Within the MOQ, the idea that static patterns of value start with the inorganic level is considered to be a GOOD idea." - Pirsig.

Dan:
I see no contradiction. This idea works very well as a rule. But I see
you haven't answered my question. How do you know objects exist prior
to your experience of them? I realize it is an assumption; for the
most part I go along with it every day. It is a high quality idea.
Aren't we here to explore the MOQ, however? Don't you think it points
to better ways of organizing reality?

>
> The MOQ begins with Quality - then ideas - then the idea that the inorganic level came before all the other static patterns.. How does an idea suddenly become higher in a hierarchy than another? Based on how *good* it is..  Different ideas are good at different times..

Dan:
In our everyday way of  thinking, matter comes before ideas. In the
MOQ, matter emerges from ideas which emerge from Dynamic Quality.

>
> Here's another comment:
>
>> So writing Lila was a waste of time? And us reading it and discussing
>> it is useless as well? We are stuck and that's that? Sorry, but I
>> cannot accept that. The MOQ offers us a more expanded view of
>> rationality. To continue believing that objects exist independently of
>> an observer seems quaint but hardly worthwhile if we are to make any
>> use of the MOQ.
>
>
> "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce what we know as matter. The scientific community that has produced Complementarity, almost invariably presumes that matter comes first and produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ says that the idea that matter comes first is a high QUALITY idea!" - -LC
>
> How else can I say this Dan…

Dan:
I understand your confusion here. You want to believe there is
something real that you can hold onto. Like a drowning person grasping
at straws you are floundering around in search of validation for a
reality that really exists. It leads to convoluted sentences like
this:

>
> Quality first.. then Ideas…. then the *Quality* idea that matter comes first..  See how the MOQ solves this problem of materialism vs idealism?

Dan:
The MOQ solves the materialism vs idealism quandary by saying they are
both right in their own limited fashion, like the three blind men who
come across an elephant and each seeks in their own way to describe
it.

> … It solves it by including Quality.   Of course, idealism is right.. Matter cannot exist before we think about it.. *But* adds the MOQ - it's a good idea so let's assume that matter comes first when it's good to do so…  A time when it's good to do it is when we look at anything scientific… If we can't assume that this matter exists independent of our thinking about it, then there's no point to science.. 'It's all imaginary and if we want to mend a broken bone or get a liver transplant, then all we really need to do is change our minds' (says idealism).  But, what's also true is that it's a good idea to assume that this matter, these objects; they actually exist independent of us thinking about them so that's what we assume..
>
> The same goes for LA experiencing an earthquake - It's good to assume that LA exists and experienced an earthquake..  or that the object hiroshima experiences other objects called atomic bombs… If we cannot assume that then it's just our imagination and no one need care about it when it actually happens…  To stop it from happening we could just change our minds and think of something else…
>
> But of course, they do experience these things..  And this experience is beautifully explained by the MOQ.

Dan:
I think the confusion here centers on the term 'experience.' Don't
you? When is the last time a city told you anything? Does the City of
Los Angeles ever correspond with you like I am doing?

There is nothing wrong with saying that the City of Los Angeles
experiences earthquakes as long as it is remembered that we are
speaking allegorically.

>
>>> In this post I've tried to ask more questions to hopefully bring out more assumptions that you might have and aid our discussion..
>>>
>>> So, a few questions on the 'nature' of DQ to begin...
>>>
>>> When you talk about Dynamic Quality - can you do so without using static quality?

Dan:
Of course not.

>>>
>>> Is the term Dynamic Quality actually static quality?

Dan:
Asked and answered. Of course it is.

>>>
>>> Assuming it is.. Isn't the definition of Dynamic Quality into something static like this rather degenerate?

Dan:
Dynamic Quality cannot be defined by what it is; we may define it by
what it is not.

>>>
>>> Assuming you agree - Why do you commit this degeneracy?

Dan:
I do my best not to.

>>>
>>> When Pirsig claims that 'Everything is an analogy.' in ZMM - where does static quality come into our understanding of this statement?

Dan:
"Everything."

>>>
>>> When you use an analogy to describe DQ - is that analogy DQ or sq?

Dan:
Static quality, of course.

>>>
>>> Finally, why do you think that Pirsig breaks the undefinable Quality of ZMM into the two terms DQ and sq in Lila?

Dan:
The Quality of ZMM becomes Dynamic Quality of Lila.

>>> Why bother writing Lila - why not just leave Quality undefined?

Dan:
That's something Robert Pirsig is better qualified in answering. I
should think he had something more to say by offering the MOQ.

>>
>> Hi David
>> I appreciate your questions but reading over them I think Robert
>> Pirsig answered these in Lila. Didn't he? I mean, I could offer you
>> quotes but if you really need answers to these questions, mightn't it
>> be better to read the book again? And I don't mean that in a negative
>> way. I know I've read the book many times and seem to get something
>> new from it each time.
>
> You could really give this response to every single thing ever said about Lila, ZMM the MOQ or just about everything else..

Dan:
I disagree. I assume a certain level of competency from members here.
To have to answer very fundamental questions regarding the MOQ seems
like a waste of time if all one need do is to read the book. Be that
as it may, I have gone ahead and answered your questions. I don't
think you'll see any surprises.

>
> Obviously, there are different interpretations of the MOQ, Lila and ZMM.  Some of those interpretations are good, others not so much… You've said that you struggle to explain yourself or why you think that I'm wrong… I'm trying to aid our discussion on this topic by asking some questions to get a better understanding of your position.  Anyway - I hope you reconsider and respond to my questions..

Dan:
And I hope you reconsider and take my advice. I have explained my
position very well. I realize you are having a difficult time grasping
where these fundamentals of the MOQ lead us. So again, I suggest you
might want to re-read Lila. Or not.

>
>>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>>
>>>>> You are never going to understand me if you don't agree with me when I say that the MOQ allows multiple competing ideas to exist simultaneously..
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> First, perhaps I should clear up the misconception you seem to have
>>>> regarding my understanding. I do understand you. If you read the quote
>>>> from Lila's Child where I asked Mr. Pirsig how Dynamic Quality and
>>>> experience become synonymous, you might see that I was thinking along
>>>> the same lines as you, namely, that we experience static quality. That
>>>> was why I asked the questions I asked.
>>>>
>>>> Now, as far as multiple competing ideas existing simultaneously, I
>>>> would say as long as they are high quality ideas, sure. Here is an
>>>> example of a competing idea. Please tell me whether or not you think
>>>> it is of value:
>>>>
>>>> Recently there was a shooting in Connecticut. A crazed man walked into
>>>> a school and gunned down a number of women and children. Now there are
>>>> folk (laughably calling themselves 'Truthers') advancing the idea that
>>>> this shooting is a hoax perpetrated to further gun control. What's
>>>> worse, there are many people who actually believe it! Do you fall into
>>>> that camp?
>>>
>>> I think that an understanding of the MOQ which can explain how LA experienced and earthquake, than one which cannot, is better.
>>
>> Dan:
>> I like avocados on my turkey sandwich. I think the MOQ can explain how
>> it is better than a sandwich without avocados.
>
> Because you deny that Metaphysics can explain how LA experienced an earthquake - rather than consider that there is a metaphysical understanding which can, you resort to sarcasm.. Regardless, I appreciate the extreme with which you take your thinking here as it will now help me to explain why a Metaphysical understanding which includes Quality is better than one which doesn't…

Dan:
No sarcasm intended. David, I offered a scenario which seemed
applicable to our discussion. I asked you a very specific question.
You did not respond except to offer something completely off  the
wall. I responded in kind. If you are not going to take the time to
consider my words and at least placate me with an answer, why should
I?

>
>
> **An MOQ Ranking of Explanations as to Why Turkey Sandwiches with Avocados are Better than Those Without**
>
> Perhaps avocados taste good.. (Biological quality)
>
> Perhaps you have been raised this way and it is part of your culture to value avocados..  (Social quality)
>
> Perhaps they're more nutritious for our bodies… (Intellectual quality)
>
> Each of these values is just as real as the other..  The higher level, the better 'reason' it is..
>
>
> Applying the MOQ to our everyday experience like this - to me - is the whole point of Metaphysics..

Dan:
Now, see? Was that really so difficult? Why did you ignore my earlier question?

>
>>>>> In your view I contradict myself constantly when I say that Dynamic Quality is synonymous with experience. And then later I will go on to say that experience is static quality..
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> This is the first time I see you saying Dynamic Quality is synonymous
>>>> with experience. You've repeatedly said in the past that we experience
>>>> DQ. That isn't the same thing. I think 'becomes' works better than
>>>> 'is' in your sentence (as I will explain later) but I also see it as
>>>> an improvement over what you've been saying.
>>>
>>> Right. Because we need to avoid equating Dynamic Quality with anything right?   But then you do realise that the term DQ is an association of DQ with a static quality combination of the terms 'Dynamic' and 'Quality' right?
>>
>> Dan:
>> The term Dynamic Quality is an intellectual pattern of quality. Is
>> that what you mean?
>
> As you say Dan - "once defined experience is no longer Dynamic Quality.  Static quality has emerged."  The name 'Dynamic Quality' is static quality. This is a degenerate naming of that which cannot be named.  Naming it only serves the intellectual level..
>
> " There was another part that kept saying, 'Ahh, do it anyway. It's interesting.' This was the intellectual part that didn't like undefined things, and telling it not to define Quality was like telling a fat man to stay out of the refrigerator, or an alcoholic to stay out of bars. To the intellect the process of defining Quality has a compulsive quality of its own. It produces a certain excitement even though it leaves a hangover afterward, like too many cigarettes, or a party that has lasted too long. Or Lila last night. It isn't anything of lasting beauty; no joy forever. What would you call it? Degeneracy, he guessed. Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity."
>
> Metaphysics is mystical degeneracy.. But intellectually very valuable.

Dan:
Not sure of your point. You seem to be answering your own questions here.

>
>>>>> So in support of the MOQ allowing multiple competing ideas to exist - I provide the following..
>>>>>
>>>>> "Unlike subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of things - that which corresponds to the 'objective' world - and all other constructions are unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute Truth.' One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can then examine intellectual realities the same way one examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns of values." - Lila.
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> I see no problem with this. But what you espouse isn't better (of
>>>> higher value) than what Robert Pirsig has said. It is confusing at
>>>> best and tends to lead one back into thinking of objects existing
>>>> separately and prior to experience.
>>>
>>> I disagree and I disagree that RMP claims that LA doesn't experience earthquakes..
>>>
>>> There was a post recently about how people are confused why Pirsig left India.. But it's written in ZMM why he left:
>>>
>>> "But one day in the classroom the professor of philosophy was blithely expounding on the illusory nature of the world for what seemed the fiftieth time and Phædrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed that the atomic bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory. The professor smiled and said yes. That was the end of the exchange.
>>>
>>> Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that answer may have been correct, but for Phædrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers regularly and is concerned with such things as mass destruction of human beings that answer was hopelessly inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and gave up."
>>>
>>> LA experiences earthquakes the same way Nagasaki and Hiroshima experience atomic bombs...
>>>
>>> They exist and are experienced by both the physical cities and the people within them…
>>
>> Dan:
>> In the context of Indian philosophy, where Buddhism arose, the world
>> is seen as illusory. It exists in our imagination. Or at least the
>> professor thought so. In the context of Western philosophy, the world
>> is real. Objects exist separately and apart from the observer. These
>> two contexts seem contradictory on the surface. On the other hand, in
>> ZMM, Robert Pirsig writes:
>>
>> "The world has no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination.
>> It's all a ghost, and in antiquity was so recognized as a ghost, the
>> whole blessed world we live in. It's run by ghosts. We see what we see
>> because these ghosts show it to us,
>> ghosts of Moses and Christ and the Buddha, and Plato, and Descartes, and
>> Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on and on and on. Isaac Newton is a
>> very good ghost. One of the best. Your common sense is nothing more than
>> the voices of thousands and thousands of these ghosts from the past.
>> Ghosts and more ghosts. Ghosts trying to find their place among the
>> living.'' [ZMM]
>>
>> Dan comments:
>> How is this any different than the Indian professor saying the world
>> is illusory? Is it possible that young Phaedrus simply wasn't ready to
>> see that context yet?
>
> There is an important difference between the world being an *illusion* and the world existing in our *imagination*..   You seem to say above that they are the same thing
>
> "where Buddhism arose, the world is seen as illusory. It exists in our imagination."
>
> .. But...
>
> To a Mystic - the world is an ILLUSION because any intellectual distinction - including the distinction of real and not-real - does not concern the Mystic.
>
> Alternatively to an Idealist - the world is nothing but what exists in our IMAGINATION and anything beyond our imagination is not real…
>
> What the MOQ does is put these two outlooks in a Metaphysical hierarchy and thus puts them into *intellectual* perspective.  As Pirsig realised - what allows us to compare the Mystic outlook with the Intellectual outlook is Quality.  Undefined Quality is the mystic perspective while the opposing defined quality is the intellectual perspective..  It's impossible to look at the world from one 'perspective' at the same time as the other.  They are both opposite perspectives.

Dan:
Main Entry: 	
illusory  [ih-loo-suh-ree, -zuh-] Show IPA
Part of Speech: 	adjective
Definition: 	deceptive
Synonyms: 	Barmecidal, apparent, blue sky, chimerical, deceitful,
delusive, delusory, fallacious, false, fanciful, fantastic, fictional,
fictitious, fictive, float, hallucinatory, ideal, illusive, IMAGINARY,
misleading, mistaken, ostensible, pipe dream, seeming, semblant, sham,
suppositious, supposititious, unreal, untrue, visionary, whimsical

Dan comments:
Illusory and imaginary are seen as synonymous.

>
>
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> So now - I have some questions for you:
>>>>>
>>>>> (Asked in post below after all..)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Experience. What is it? Does it immediately imply a subject and an object?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well not according to the MOQ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the beginning there was Experience!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> Try using the active voice instead of the passive: The beginning IS experience!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See, that way we're not saying experience is transcendent.
>>>>>
>>>>> But experience(DQ) can be transcendent… If it wasn't transcendent then the Gateless Gate would have no significance to us:
>>>>>
>>>>> "In this analogy, as one approaches the gate, it seems to be a goal, but after one has passed through and looks back he sees there never was any gate Translating back into the MOQ, one can say that Dynamic Quality is a goal from a static point of view, but is the origin of all things from a Dynamic understanding."
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice how Pirsig explicitly points out two opposing points of view? These two views are the whole point to all my posts… This is what I'm saying..  From a static point of view - using the language of everyday life - DQ is a transcendent goal and our everyday experiences are sq. But - from a Dynamic understanding, DQ creates all experience to the point where DQ is synonymous with experience…
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> tran·scend·ent
>>>> [tran-sen-duhnt] Show IPA
>>>> adjective
>>>> 1. going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.
>>>> 2. superior or supreme.
>>>> 3. Theology . (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc.
>>>> Compare immanent (  def 3 ) .
>>>> 4. Philosophy .
>>>> a. Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite.
>>>> b. Kantianism. transcending experience; not realizable in human
>>>> experience. Compare transcendental (  defs 5a, c ) .
>>>> c. (in modern realism) referred to, but beyond, direct apprehension;
>>>> outside consciousness. [dictionary.com]
>>>>
>>>> Dan comments:
>>>> Perhaps I misunderstood your use of the word but looking over these
>>>> definitions I somehow doubt it. And again, I see you saying "DQ
>>>> creates all experience" and that is NOT what Robert Pirsig is on about
>>>> in the above passages. Let me see if I can explain:
>>>>
>>>> Dynamic Quality is a goal from a static point of view. Static quality
>>>> emerges from Dynamic Quality and so it is no longer experience. Static
>>>> quality is a memory of experience and so it seems as if Dynamic
>>>> Quality is some sort of goal, another static pattern to define. Once
>>>> we pass through the gate of realization we recognize Dynamic Quality
>>>> is NOT a static pattern at all. Dynamic Quality has become synonymous
>>>> with experience. 'It' doesn't create experience, however.
>>>
>>> Okay in your explanation here: what happens to the first 'static point of view'?  Is it simply 'wrong'? What happens *after* Dynamic Quality becomes synonymous with experience? What about experiences of static things like atomic bombs and thoughts and computers..
>>
>> Dan:
>> This is why I think it is better to say static patterns arise from
>> experience. It helps eliminate confusion like your passage above. A
>> static point of view is a memory of experience, not experience itself.
>> Again, I would hesitate to say it is right or wrong. There are varying
>> degrees of value, and some points of view are higher quality than
>> others.
>>
>> All we have are words. Anything I say about Dynamic Quality is off the
>> mark. And sure, you can take my words and smear them into meaning
>> anything you want. You can ask questions that only make sense in a
>> subject and object way of thinking, or you can ask better questions
>> that take into account the MOQ. So far, you are only asking the
>> former. So any of my answers will be taken in that context, which
>> disallows any further agreement with the expanded rationality offered
>> by the MOQ.
>
> The MOQ doesn't deny SOM.  You keep denigrating SOM and I see no need..

Dan:
So you see no need for the MOQ, in other words. That explains a lot. I
am not denigrating 'SOM' as you say. I am saying there may be a more
expansive way of organizing reality and I wonder why you insist on
clinging to the more restrictive idea that a subject experiences
objects.

>
> After writing Lila Pirsig realised that SOM fits very nicely into the MOQ.. The first two levels .. inorganic and biological  are objects… the top two levels … social and intellectual are subjective..
>
> Your denigration of SOM implies that you don't think that Subjects and Objects are experienced or exist.

Dan:
Again, please go back and show me where I ever said objects do not
exist. I've gone to great pains to show you how they do exist. I've
offered quotes from Lila to show you that static patterns make up an
encyclopedia of everything.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.'

>
>>>>> but I'm sure most of what you've written below is ultimately correct...    I agree with you about DQ being synonymous with experience..  But there is another opposing point of view… The language of every day life where what we experience is sq..
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> Sure, if one believes they are a witness (subject) to a world of
>>>> everyday things (objects). The MOQ teaches us that subjects and
>>>> objects are not pre-existing things. They emerge from experience. So
>>>> to say in the language of everyday life we experience static quality
>>>> (subjects and objects) is taking a giant step backwards from the
>>>> expanded rationality offered by the MOQ.
>>>>
>>>> Is that really what you want to do?
>>>
>>> I'll answer sarcastically that of course that is what I want to do!
>>>
>>> Does the MOQ oppose SOM? If the MOQ is what you call an 'expanded rationality', why should we discard SOM?  The MOQ claims that 'ultimately Quality isn't anything definable'.  Does that mean we should just keep our mouths shut and forget our opinions and all static quality?
>>
>> Dan:
>> I am unsure how you get from here to there with your answer. The MOQ
>> doesn't discard our everyday way of thinking about subjects observing
>> objects; rather, it expands upon it by saying these are not primary to
>> experience. They emerge from experience. You may have the wrong book
>> in mind when you say Quality isn't definable. Doesn't Lila define a
>> part of Quality?
>
> Yes actually Lila fully defines the Quality of ZMM.

Dan:
Ah, so here is a problem. Quality cannot be fully defined. Only static
quality is defined.

> It defines the Quality of ZMM into undefined Quality(DQ) and defined quality(sq).  Pirsig is fully aware of the degeneracy of this:

Dan:
This doesn't make sense if you understand the Quality of ZMM has
become Dynamic Quality in Lila. In as much as Dynamic Quality and
experience become synonymous in the MOQ, it seems unreasonable to say
Quality has been defined. Experience can never be fully defined.

>
> "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.

>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In any hierarchy of metaphysical classification the most important division is the first one, for this division dominates everything beneath it. If this first division is bad there is no way you can ever build a really good system of classification around it.
>>>>>>> In his book Phaedrus had tried to save Quality from metaphysics by refusing to define it, by placing it outside the dialectical chess board. Anything that is undefined is outside metaphysics, since metaphysics can only function with defined terms. If you can't define it you can't argue about it. He had demonstrated that even though you can't define Quality you still must agree that it exists, since a world from which value is subtracted becomes unrecognisable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But he realized that sooner or later he was going to have to stop carping about how bad subject-object metaphysics was and say something positive for a change. Sooner or later he was going to have to come up with a way of dividing Quality that was better than subjects and objects. He would have to do that or get out of metaphysics entirely. It's all right to condemn somebody else's bad metaphysics but you can't replace it with a metaphysics that consists of just one word.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By even using the term 'Quality' he had already violated the nothingness of mystic reality. The use of the term 'Quality' sets up a pile of questions of its own that have nothing to do with mystic reality and walks away leaving them unanswered. Even the name, 'Quality,' was a kind of definition since it tended to associate mystic reality with certain fixed and limited understandings. Already he was in trouble. Was the mystic reality of the universe really more immanent in the higher-priced cuts of meat in the butcher shop? These were 'Quality' meats, weren't they? Was the butcher using the term incorrectly? Phaedrus had no answers." Lila - Page 9
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So how do we divide this 'nowness'?  This 'immediate reality'...  This Quality which is right in front of us..   How do we divide it up? We can't avoid definition…  As Pirsig writes :   By even using the term 'Quality' he had already violated the nothingness of mystic reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So how do we divide it…
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The best way to divide it up is by acknowledging this ineffability.  To build this ineffability right into the structure basic structure of it.   So how do we do that? Well, we do that by starkly separating it against what it is not..  It is not, fixed.  It is not rigid.  It is not defined. It is not new. Anything with those characteristics, is part of what it is not… static quality. Even our metaphysics which we are defining right now is something which is not 'it'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now though - you will notice that our original DQ experience is divided in two. The source, and the result.  All is experience. One is designated the undefined originator, the other - the result. This is the key point. When we break up experience into two admittedly sq distinctions like this…both still represent experience...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> No, no, no... this is not correct at all [Dan wipes off blackboard
>>>>>> while muttering to himself]. Once Dynamic Quality is divided up,
>>>>>> defined, organized, intellectualized, it is no longer experience.
>>>>>> Static quality emerges from Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality isn't
>>>>>> divided in 2.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll repeat the quote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "In any hierarchy of metaphysical classification the most important division is the first one, for this division dominates everything beneath it. If this first division is bad there is no way you can ever build a really good system of classification around it."
>>>>>
>>>>> If Dynamic Quality isn't 'divided' as part of the first division of the MOQ then what is divided?
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> A set of intellectual patterns known as the MOQ. Experience cannot be
>>>> divided. Once divided and intellectualized into patterns it is no
>>>> longer Dynamic Quality.
>>>
>>> Experience(DQ) can be BOTH infinitely divided and not divided…  You are focusing on but one aspect of DQ..  The not divided aspect.
>>
>> Dan:
>> No I am not. Once defined, experience is no longer Dynamic. Static
>> quality has emerged.
>
> 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 one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it." - LIla's Child.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Notice how the point you just made points to the fact that Dynamic Quality is 'undefinable'?  What about that other aspect of Dynamic Quality which is infinitely definable?  Dynamic Quality is infinitely definable as static quality.
>>
>> Dan:
>> No. Once defined it is no longer Dynamic Quality.
>
> 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.

> I mean, I agree with you.  Once defined as static quality - it is no longer Dynamic Quality…   But a 'characteristic' of Dynamic Quality is that it is both infinitely definable and undefinable.  Your statement that 'experience' cannot be divided is not correct..  Experience can be divided.. It can be divided infinitely.  Once it is divided, we call it static quality yes, but it can still be divided.

Dan:
The definitions emerging from experience are what we divide. Not
experience itself.

>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> This quote should be all that is needed to understand what Robert
>>>> Pirsig is saying concerning Dynamic Quality.
>>>
>>> Intellectually it is all that is needed yes.  But then there is experience itself..
>>
>> Dan:
>> Which is infinitely definable and undefinable at the same time.
>
> At different times, depending on which is better.. There is no one ideal in the MOQ.. Just different values for different times..

Dan:
"Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can
be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the
definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to
Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both
infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts
it." [Lila's Child]

Dan comments:
I take the term 'both' to mean at the same time. And again, please
note the sentence: "... once the definitions emerge, they are static
patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality." This is important
and pertains directly to our discussion.

>
>>>>>>> " A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first division of Quality - the first slice of undivided experience - is into subjects and objects. Once you have made that slice, all of human experience is supposed to fit into one of these two boxes. The trouble is, it doesn't. What he had seen is that there is a metaphysical box that sits above these two boxes, Quality itself. And once he'd seen this he also saw a huge number of ways in which Quality can be divided. Subjects and objects are just one of the ways.
>>>>>>> The question was, which way was best?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the best way to first divide up this undivided experience (Which as we know is DQ) is into the static quality intellectual distinctions of DQ and static quality.  'It' happens and then we create these terms DQ and sq about it later.. And this idea is built into the foundation of the MOQ itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this is the source of the confusion...  *Of course* What we now call DQ is first. *Of course* it is before everything.  But we are talking with words which have their own fixed metaphysical meanings.  The term DQ is something static. With the MOQ we separate Dynamic Quality into two.  We separate DQ(experience) into the static quality distinction between sq and DQ and this breaks 'experience' into two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a subtle point but an important one as it explains better how we can say that we experience static quality - static quality is part of that originally undefined experience but all is experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> No. You are still seeing the world in terms of objects that can be
>>>>>> divided. I think you are missing a great piece of the MOQ puzzle by
>>>>>> your continued insistence on equating static quality with experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you are missing a great piece of the puzzle by refusing to equate static quality with experience.  There are two perspectives of the MOQ.. not one.  The static point of view perspective of everyday life… and the 'enlightened' perspective of DQ.  You seem to have hit enlightenment and gone - 'There is no longer experience of static quality' and ended it there…
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> I am not refusing anything except to go along with the misguided
>>>> notion that we experience static quality or Dynamic Quality for that
>>>> matter. There is only experience. Static quality, which emerges later,
>>>> is no longer experience.
>>>>
>>>> I assure you I am not enlightened as I have said many times in the
>>>> past. How can I be enlightened when there is no such thing as
>>>> enlightenment?
>>>
>>> Right… An enlightened person never claims to be enlightened for distinctions between folks who are enlightened and folks who aren't don't exist from a Dynamic perspective.  I get your perspective.. But there is a whole other everyday static point of view which does picking and choosing between folks who are enlightened and folks who aren't.  Or more correctly.. folks who are enlightened and folks who don't realise they are enlightened.
>>
>> Dan:
>> We are all enlightened beings. That's why I say enlightenment doesn't exist.
>
> We are all enlightened beings - does anything exist?

Dan:
Of course. You know that.

>
> What actually exists?

Dan:
The human imagination.

>
>>>>>>> This is along the lines of a Pirsig quote you provided recently..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "DG:
>>>>>>> Yes, this does help, thank you. What bothers me slightly—I am sure I am not seeing it in the proper light yet—is how experience can be synonymous with Dynamic Quality? Isn’t experience that which we define?
>>>>>>> RMP:
>>>>>>> Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DQ(experience) is both infinitely definable(as sq) and undefinable(which is what we call DQ). Experience can be either. Not one or the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> Please read carefully:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no
>>>>>> longer apply to Dynamic Quality."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, please read this carefully (I see you have 'conveniently' excised
>>>>>> this from my quote to dmb, but used the rest of it. I wonder why? Is
>>>>>> this a case of ignoring that which doesn't agree with you?):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RMP:
>>>>>> 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.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IF Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous in the MOQ, and IF
>>>>>> static patterns no longer apply to Dynamic Quality (experience), then
>>>>>> doesn't it seem that we do not experience static patterns? They are
>>>>>> concepts of experience, not experience itself! If you do not see this,
>>>>>> then I suspect you are caught up in your own notions of the MOQ to the
>>>>>> exclusion of everything else and what's more, nothing I nor anyone
>>>>>> else can say will shake you from your malaise.
>>>>>
>>>>> As much as you disagree I still agree with you. You're right - static patterns can be concepts of experience! In fact we both experience and do not experience static quality. What a contradiction! But unlike SOM the MOQ isn't based on one set of objective truths but based on how good these truths are at explaining reality.  In this case, we have two truths - an ultimate truth and one which we use for everyday…  You're ultimately right, but there is still people experiencing a whole bunch of static quality things which our everyday ordinary perspectives would say exist..
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> Again, I never said static quality doesn't exist. It simply no longer
>>>> exists as experience.
>>>
>>> No longer exists as experience?  So static quality did once exist as experience?  How interesting..
>>
>> Dan:
>> No, not quite. Static quality emerges from experience. Before this
>> emergence there is no way to say whether static quality exists or
>> doesn't exist.
>
> Right.. A starting point isn't a starting point if there's a point before it..

Dan:
Ah. So you now see static quality emerges from experience and is no
longer experience itself. That's wonderful!

>
>>
>>>
>>>> There is no contradiction here. There are also
>>>> people who believe the world is flat, we never walked on the moon,
>>>> there are faces on Mars, and there is a god in heaven above looking
>>>> down on us all judging our each and every action. So what? The
>>>> everyday world is full of idiocy. Does that mean we have to play
>>>> along?
>>>
>>> What you are talking about here is quality of ideas and not whether static quality things exist..  Yes, our ideas (such as the MOQ) create things.. But the quality of explanation is what makes them right or wrong and not simply the proclamation that they are right or their existence as ideas..
>>
>> Dan:
>> Well, again, I do not believe the MOQ is on about right and wrong, nor
>> am I. I am talking about value. Some ideas have more value than other
>> ideas.
>
> 1+1 = 3 or does 1+1=2 ? Neither of these is wrong? What about 1+1=9438082430089240 or 1+1 = birds.  The value of 'wrongness' is included in the MOQ just as with everything else...

Dan:
Try adding piles of dirt. No matter how many piles you add, there will
only be one pile of dirt. On one end of the scale is the nonsensical,
or low quality idea. On the other end of the scale is a high quality
idea. 1+1=9438082430089240 may well work in the context of adding one
pile of sand to another pile of sand if one is counting individual
grains of sand.

In addition, there is a condition known as synesthesia
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia] whereby the stimulation of
one sensory perception automatically leads to secondary pathways.
Numbers may well evoke personalities like animals so that to some
people 1+1=birds makes perfect sense. For a person suffering from
synesthesia this is of high value. It is how they perceive the world.

>
>>>>>>>> I like to think that by moving closer to the center of experience I
>>>>>>>> cultivate compassion not only for people but for every sentient being.
>>>>>>>> By seeing the transitory nature of the world I come to know the
>>>>>>>> significance of the moment. But I am not going to do that here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Make yourself alive! The MOQ or any intellectual pursuit cannot do
>>>>>>>> this. Surely you know that already, though…
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well I feel very alive intellectually thinking and talking about the MOQ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> But there is so much more!
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.   So many more things to experience… :-)
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> As long as one stays in the moment.
>>>
>>> Or not, and we think about them intellectually. Which is a different experience than 'staying in the moment', but an experience none the less...
>>
>> Dan:
>> Well, once the thinking starts we are no longer in the moment. We are
>> remembering experience, changing it into concepts with which we can
>> agree upon. We are mapping past experience.
>
> Right - important intellecutal distinction - experience of DQ or sq?

Dan:
Please re-read what I wrote while keeping in mind that within the MOQ,
experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous.

>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>> The MOQ is a better way of ordering reality than believing the world
>>>>>>>> is composed of nothing but subject and objects. Like all intellectual
>>>>>>>> patterns of quality, it isn't experience; it is a map of experience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Intellectual patterns are a part of experience which describe and represent other experiences independent of those original experiences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> So are there also experiences which experience experiences that
>>>>>> represent and describe those other experiences of the original
>>>>>> experiences that are independent of experienced experiences?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "You have to cut it off somewhere, and it seems to me the greatest
>>>>>> meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is confined to
>>>>>> the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols THAT HAVE NO
>>>>>> CORRESPONDING PARTICULAR EXPERIENCE and which behave according to
>>>>>> rules of their own." [Robert Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner, caps
>>>>>> mine]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There. Isn't that much simpler?
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. 'Skilled manipulation of abstract symbols' - that's not an everyday experience?
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> These abstract symbols emerge from experience. They are not
>>>> experience, everyday or otherwise.
>>>
>>> If I paint a symbol on a wall in front of us both.
>>>
>>> Is it real? Does it exist? Is it part of our experience?
>>>
>>> What about if we think about a symbol?
>>>
>>> Subjects and Objects are not ultimate experience but they are part of experience nonetheless..
>>
>> Dan:
>> Better to say they are not experience. They arise from experience. The
>> split second we encounter a symbol there is no thought, only pure
>> perception. Once we know what that symbol defines, we have moved away
>> from experience. We are recalling that initial encounter, categorizing
>> it, intellectualizing it, defining it.
>
> "The split second we encounter a symbol".  You sound like me… I could just charge that you're using the assumption of a pre-existing subject and pre-existing object in your explanation here..

Dan:
Any time we attempt to explain that which lies before explanation our
words can be twisted into meaning something different. If we keep in
mind the context of the MOQ, perhaps this confusion can be averted.

> As you know - from a Dynamic perspective there is no 'we' or 'symbol'  There is just experience and then from that experience the symbol is created… And then from that we can go into further detail if we like about who exactly has the thought of symbol.. and further and further away from DQ we go…
>
> You're ultimately right Dan.
>
> But there is another perspective of the MOQ which says that it is sometimes a good idea to assume subjects and objects exist before we experience them - depending on the situation..

Dan:
As long as it is understood that it is a good idea and not a true
representation of reality.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, David, but I do not see that you agree with me at all. You
>>>>>>>> may believe you agree and I sense you are becoming frustrated with my
>>>>>>>> repeated attempts to show you that we do not agree but what else can I
>>>>>>>> do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to be viewing Dynamic Quality as something ineffable and
>>>>>>>> beyond our grasp. It is right here! Right now! Experience is
>>>>>>>> synonymous with Dynamic Quality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've never met anyone who agrees just for the sake of it.  A very strange person would do that on a philosophical forum.  I am not one of those people because I *actually* agree with you here..   Experience starts with DQ. Then we divide that experience intellectually into the two parts called Dynamic Quality and static quality.  Both are still experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> But you don't agree with me!!! How can you say you agree when you are
>>>>>> arguing against me? We don't divide experience! Static patterns emerge
>>>>>> from experience but these patterns NO LONGER APPLY TO DYNAMIC QUALITY!
>>>>>> They no longer apply to experience! So how is it you agree with me?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not arguing against you.  I just think there is a wider perspective than the one you are offering..   It's not like I disagree with anything you say..  In fact, I think *ultimately* you're right.  Experience is Dynamic Quality and not static quality. That's talking ultimately - from a Dynamic perspective.. But there is another perspective of everyday affairs such as LA experiencing earthquakes which I think that you are missing..
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> You have yet to grasp the perspective I am offering. So how can you
>>>> say you're offering a wider one? Because you believe cities experience
>>>> earthquakes and objects exist prior to experience? Don't you see what
>>>> you're saying? You are offering up the tired old subject observing
>>>> object theory that the MOQ is meant to expand upon.
>>>
>>> I cannot 'grasp' your perspective because your 'perspective' isn't graspable.  Your 'perspective' is that of immediate experience.. Dynamic Quality.. what's right in front of us… not thoughts moments later….
>>
>> Dan:
>> And so how is your perspective wider than that?
>
> It's not.. I can 'know' your 'perspective' through direct experience. Zazen is an effective way to bring one back to the present moment and everything we experience.   There's no perspective which is 'wider' than this fundamental direct experience..  An intellectual distinction like 'wider' does not factor into this perspective.. It is before all intellectual distinction between wider and smaller and anything else.. It is the 'perspective' of DQ. But to even call it a perspective would be wrong, it's not even that… It's not even Dynamic Quality..
>
> There is however, another 'perspective' which ruins this first perspective.  It takes us not closer to it - but further away from this first perspective.  This is the intellectual perspective of Metaphysics and the MOQ.   From the DQ 'perspective' this perspective is degenerate.. It is an attempt to catch that which cannot be caught. But - picking up bar ladies and writing metaphysics are a part of life..
>
> "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."

Dan:
Luckily I am no mystic. :)

>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.

>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.

>
>>> What about other levels - Do I 'imagine' the blowing of trees in the wind, and this keyboard in front of me, and a good friend being kind?
>>
>> Dan:
>> "The world has no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination."
>
> I agree.  But isn't the alternative a good idea sometimes also?

Dan:
As long as it is understood that it is an idea and not reality itself.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've said it before but the MOQ is summed up very nicely at the end of Lila..
>>>>>
>>>>> "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."
>>>>>
>>>>> Ultimately Quality isn't anything definable - but qualities - they are nouns - they are things which we experience.. I don't know if it could be much clearer than that..
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> Again, the MOQ isn't experience. There are no pre-existing things like
>>>> nouns or the MOQ waiting for us to experience. There are sets of
>>>> patterns emerging from experience. Perhaps if you keep that in mind as
>>>> you re-read the quote that will help.
>>>
>>> It helps me to see your perspective.. A perspective which I repeatedly say isn't wrong.. But there is another inescapable perspective which says that things like nouns and the MOQ exist and are a part of our experience.
>>
>> Dan:
>> They exist in the imagination, sure. They exist as memories of
>> experience. Is that the part to which you refer?
>
> Not 'just in our minds'.  The MOQ isn't *just* idealism.

Dan:
Right. Inorganic and biological patterns correspond to materialism.

> It's idealism which follows Qualilty.  It can be a good idea to say that matter existed before we ever thought about it.

Dan:
The MOQ states that matter emerges from ideas, not the other way
around. The MOQ also states it is a good idea to say matter comes
before ideas as long as we remember it is an idea.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Somehow though, you seem to to want to avoid sq and continually point to DQ..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>> Of course I don't. These words, these thoughts, they are all
>>>>>>>> intellectual quality patterns. That's all we have to discuss the MOQ.
>>>>>>>> But we don't experience static quality, as such. Static quality is
>>>>>>>> always removed from reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We do experience static quality. Static quality describes nothing! Static quality comes from nothing! They are but two sides of the same experience coin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> But David:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided
>>>>>> into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social
>>>>>> patterns and intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all
>>>>>> there are. If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic,
>>>>>> Biological, Social and Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing,"
>>>>>> that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any
>>>>>> encyclopedia, is absent." [Lila]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Static quality patterns describe everything. The only 'thing' left out
>>>>>> is Dynamic Quality, or experience, which cannot be described. Static
>>>>>> quality patterns describe our whole world. How can you say they
>>>>>> describe nothing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because as mentioned earlier, static quality comes from nothing..
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> So experience is nothing? Do you really mean to say that?
>>>
>>> Yes. Remember how I keep telling you that even though you'd like us to fully disagree - I don't disagree with you..  Your perspective is but one side of a two sided MOQ coin…
>>
>> Dan:
>> Why would I like us to disagree? What an odd thing to say. I would say
>> there are different ways of viewing reality; one involves the belief
>> in the primacy of subjects and objects, while another involves the
>> recognition that subjects and objects are not primary; rather they
>> emerge from experience. If that is your two-sided coin, then I suppose
>> you're right. I do not see a great deal of value in believing that
>> subjects and objects are primary. Do you? And if so, of what use is
>> the MOQ to you?
>
> I do not think that this is an either/or choice.. Both ideas have value.. There is certainly value in saying that ultimately there are not pre-existing subjects and objects..   But there is also value in sometimes saying that there *are* pre-existing subjects and preexisting objects..   Like when using the scientific method..

Dan:
I think the MOQ might provide a framework for scientific findings that
seem to defy everyday logic.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>> I am unsure what you are saying here. If you do not wish to form a
>>>>>>>> better understanding of the MOQ then, if I might be so bold as to ask,
>>>>>>>> what are you doing here?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is our purpose here one of working toward an agreement so far as it
>>>>>>>> pertains to the MOQ? I think so. I am unsure what it is you think I
>>>>>>>> have questioned but I assure you I am acting in a rational manner so
>>>>>>>> far as this discussion group goes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really don't need lectures telling me that we use words and that
>>>>>>>> static patterns of quality exist. Of course they do. Where on earth do
>>>>>>>> you get the idea I said otherwise? This is why I tell you wake up! You
>>>>>>>> seem to be in some kind of stupor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very simple.. How does something exist if we don't experience it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> You have it backwards. These 'things' arise from experience. We do not
>>>>>> experience them. Ask the right questions and the answers become much
>>>>>> more clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my question is wrong? How so? I think it's pretty obvious that the MOQ is pure empiricism. And a pure empiricism by definition would say that if we don't experience something then it doesn't exist..
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> I just told you. You have it backwards. Empiricism is a collection of
>>>> intellectual patterns of quality arising from experience. Things do
>>>> not exist prior to experience. See? You are asking the question
>>>> backwards. It is a low value question. Why not ask high value
>>>> questions instead?
>>>
>>> It is a high quality idea to assume that objects exist before we experience them..    Ultimately, you're right. No thing exists before we experience it.  But I'm not only interested in the search for a single ultimate truth.. I'm interested in what's good.  We cannot avoid things.. We cannot avoid the quality of SOM or our scientific thinking either.. You do so at your peril… There are two sides to this MOQ coin not one..
>>
>> Dan:
>> One might well argue it is a high quality idea that Santa Claus
>> exists, that this world has always been here and will continue to
>> exist after our demise, and that Fido's dog dish will be there even
>> when we're not. Who am I to argue with fairy tales?
>
> You are a person who is capable of responding to Dynamic Quality.  You know what's good, just as everyone else.. You are in an especially good position to determine what's good as you know a metaphysics which helps to categorise claims of what's good and what isn't depending on how evolved it is..
>
> This is a large part of the beauty of the MOQ..
>
> To support each of these claims which you describe above -  someone would have to say why they thought that Santa Claus exists:
>
> -Perhaps a friend told them? (They are basing their knowledge on social quality of friend)
>
> -Perhaps they say they saw a UFO flying through the air and just assumed it was him (A low quality intellectual inference)
>
> Or someone would have to say why they think this world would continue after our demise.
>
> -I would argue that it is good to think that it does, so it does until a better idea comes along (intellectual quality)
>
> -Or because a friend told them, and they trust that friend (social quality)
>
>
> Or finally someone would have to say why they think that Fido's dog dish will be there even when we're not.
>
> - It is a good idea to sometimes assume that objects exist before we encounter them (intellectual quality)
>
> - But to argue against; it's also a good idea to assume that ultimately, they don't exist before we encounter them (intellectual quality)
>
> - I wasn't there and a friend told me his dish was still there (social quality)

Dan:
Hearsay, your Honor. Inadmissible in court.

>
>
> Arguments for ideas can be ranked based on how good they are…  Quality is universal..
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>> The keyboard, these words, the world, all come after experience. You
>>>>>>>> do not see Dynamic Quality. You 'see' static representations of
>>>>>>>> experience that are created in your brain and which you take to be
>>>>>>>> real.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You asked: But does the MOQ say that we *only* experience Dynamic Quality?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This isn't the proper question to be asking, though. The MOQ says
>>>>>>>> Dynamic Quality and experience are seen as synonymous. So to ask if we
>>>>>>>> *only* experience Dynamic Quality is a bit nonsensical. If experience
>>>>>>>> and Dynamic Quality are seen as synonymous, how does one experience
>>>>>>>> experience? I do not believe you are grasping this fundamental point
>>>>>>>> and until you do it seems pointless to proceed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I say "we" experience Dynamic Quality. And "we" experience static quality.  If we were to presume I was speaking SOM then it would seem that I am implying that there are pre-existing subjects or object which 'experience' something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the MOQ isn't opposed to SOM. I know the MOQ. I know that there are no pre-existing subjects and pre-existing objects. But I also know that sometimes it is good to think that there are..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The difference is rooted in the historic chicken-and-egg controversy over whether matter came first and produces ideas, or ideas come first and produce what we know as matter. The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce what we know as matter. The scientific community that has produced Complementarity, almost invariably presumes that matter comes first and produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ says that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea! I think Bohr would say that philosophic idealism (i.e. ideas before matter) is a viable philosophy since complementarity allows multiple contradictory views to coexist."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key here is the Quality of these ideas.  Sometimes it's good to say that "we" experience something or other. This is the quality of static quality. If we don't say we experience it, then how does it (statically) exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> We define it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we experience those definitions? No? Then how do the definitions exist?
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> No. They arise from experience.
>>>
>>> Ultimately they do.. But what about objects?  Isn't it sometimes a good idea to say they exist before we experience them?
>>
>> Dan:
>> How would we know? Isn't that an assumption rooted in the premise that
>> objects exist separately and apart from our observation of them?
>
> No. Because of the Quality of the idea.. Have you seen the success of science this last 200 years? Isn't it good?

Dan:
That atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima, is that good? Agent
Orange used in the defoliation of Vietnamese forests, is that good? I
would say the success of science is neither good nor evil though it
has produced both. I also think the MOQ may provide answers to the
questions that are being raised by science, such as the observation
changing the results of experiments.

>
>>>>> This is an anti transcendental DQ statement and I think it's wrong.  >From a static quality perspective - Dynamic Quality isn't anything.. It's kinda like a giant 'mu'.  Not this not that…  But as you know there is a different 'understanding'..
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> There is no such thing as a "DQ statement." But even if there was, it
>>>> is YOUR statement! So now you think you are wrong. That's good. That
>>>> means we're getting somewhere, right?
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I don't think that I am 'wrong'..    But it was wrong for me to say that your perspective was wrong.. It's not wrong.. In fact it's ultimately correct.   But there is another perspective which says that experience includes static quality..
>>
>> Dan:
>> I think it is better to say static quality includes the memory of
>> experience, not the other way around.
>
> The MOQ breaks up Quality(of ZMM) into DQ and sq. Quality(of ZMM) is DQ in Lila.. Therefore - The MOQ breaks up DQ into the static quality names of DQ and sq.  Ultimately 'experience' is DQ.. But DQ can be BOTH infinitely defined and undefined  - so therefore experience includes static quality.

Dan:
I suppose if you stand on one foot and bend your neck this way and
close one eye while hopping up and down... oh wait. Now I being
sarcastic. Sorry. :(

>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> I think this question is the key the koan though.  No they don't have to 'be something' to experience them.  Why? Because we start with *experience*. Then things exist - not the other way around.  That is how we experience DQ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> We don't experience Dynamic Quality. In the MOQ, Dynamic Quality
>>>>>> becomes synonymous with experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. From a Dynamic understanding… again no disagreement.. But there is another static quality perspective where DQ is transcendent and the goal..  the gate to pass through..  This perspective is also part of the MOQ.
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> Experience isn't transcendent. It is right here! You know that every
>>>> single moment.
>>>
>>> That's one perspective.. There is another 'unenlightened' perspective which is spoken about in the gateless gate analogy.. Remember that perspective?  Why is DQ the goal?
>>
>> Dan:
>> 'It' has been forgotten.
>
> Right. Behind sq.  Which takes us further away from DQ.. We can get back to DQ by 'waking up'.  Once we 'wake up' - is that it? Can we stay like this without sq for ever and ever? Pretend as we might.. Of course not.. Doing sq things like picking up bar ladies and writing metaphysics are a part of life..

Dan:
I don't pick up bar ladies nor do I presume to know enough to write a
metaphysics. I whisper things, secrets really. If a person were to
listen closely enough they might hear...

>
>>>>>>>> You seem to be saying that Robert Pirsig is wrong: the MOQ does not
>>>>>>>> see experience and Dynamic Quality as being synonymous. To even say so
>>>>>>>> is pointless. All we experience is static quality since that is all
>>>>>>>> there is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But this is precisely how the MOQ works to expand on rationality. It
>>>>>>>> says subject and objects--patterns of value-- are secondary to
>>>>>>>> experience; they are concepts that arise from experience, not
>>>>>>>> experience itself. Subjects and objects, patterns of value, none of
>>>>>>>> these things exist prior to experience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By talking about the MOQ right now - we have broken up DQ into the two static terms DQ and sq.   So neither DQ or sq actually exists prior to experience either..  It's easy to forget that when we talk about DQ we are actually using static quality. We are 'catching that which cannot be caught'.  So how do we solve this riddle? Does DQ exist if it doesn't actually exist prior to experience?  The answer to this riddle is above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> Well, if Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous then to say
>>>>>> Dynamic Quality doesn't exist prior to experience is more than a bit
>>>>>> confusing. And yes, I realize when we talk about Dynamic Quality we
>>>>>> use static quality. That is a given, I should think. So in the MOQ we
>>>>>> do not experience Dynamic Quality nor do we experience static quality.
>>>>>> Dynamic Quality becomes synonymous with experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. From one perspective. But there's another one where DQ is the goal..  It's the 'undefined betterness' which leads us and people like the Brujo to better things..
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> I think there is experience and there is that which comes later and
>>>> you are confusing the two.
>>>
>>> If I was confusing the two I would say that sq is experience and DQ isn't experience.. But I don't say that..  I am clearly stating that, as explained by Pirsig, there are two perspective of Zen and the MOQ - not one.  The enlightened and the unenlightened.. The Big Self and the small self.. The Dynamic understanding and the static point of view..
>>>
>>> In fact, you get confused by this in your discussion with Pirsig..
>>>
>>> "DG:
>>> I was referring to your statement: “The Buddhists would say it [the concept of “I”] is certainly central to a concept of reality but it is not central to or even a part of reality itself.” It may be that I am interpreting your statement incorrectly, but it appears to me that the Buddhists are saying reality itself is not a concept or an intellectual pattern of value.
>>> For instance, a materialist might dream that someday science will develop a theory of everything. On the other hand, an idealist might tend to side with the Buddhists in saying intellectual concepts of reality are not central to or even part of reality itself? That we will never develop a theory of everything? That there’s no chance we can ever intellectually know reality?
>>>
>>> RMP:
>>> The confusion here seems to result from the two languages of Buddhism, the language of the Buddha’s world and language of everyday life. 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."
>>>
>>> Again, notice how he talks about two different languages? In the language of everyday life - reality and intellect are different…  This language of everyday life includes things like Metaphysics… A Metaphysics which describes a 'reality' which exists before it.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Working on Lila's Child was a tremendous learning experience for me.
>> What I didn't realize at the time is how mean and petty people would
>> be about my endeavor. I've been accused of being a simpleton, a foil,
>> and a fool, and that's some of the nicer things people have said. And
>> of course they are right.
>>
>> Yes, I was and am often times confused. I like to think I am working
>> through it as I grow older but I am probably just fooling myself.
>>
>> Be that as it may, I think the confusion he was referring to was our
>> mutual misunderstanding as to my previous question. You are taking it
>> out of context, in other words. The depth of our discussion was often
>> quite overwhelming and I was not armed with a lot of the knowledge I
>> have since gleaned.
>>
>> Rest assured I am not speaking from the Buddha's perspective, however.
>
> You're not now no.. But when you deny pre-existing subjects and objects you are.

Dan:
Not at all. I am speaking from the perspective of the MOQ! That's what
it is about!

>
> Alternatively - a static point of view holds that it's good to sometimes assume there are pre-existing objects and subjects...
>
> Which view is right? Neither and both - it depends on the situation.

Dan:
There is no right and wrong. There is only value, quality. As long as
one remembers the idea that matter comes before ideas is an idea, then
that is a high quality idea.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> We experience things all the time don't we?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> No! In the MOQ experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. In one sense.
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> In the MOQ sense! What else are we talking about here?
>>>
>>> The two 'understandings' of the MOQ.
>>
>> Dan:
>> I think this is unnecessarily confusing. It is difficult enough to
>> understand the MOQ, much less two of them.
>
> But perhaps the reason why you find it difficult to understand is because there are actually two different opposing understandings?
>
> "In German there are two words for “know,” kennen and wissen.  The Zen approach reduces Wissenschaft (scholarly knowledge) and thereby improves Kenntnis (recognition without intellectual interposition)."
>
> The Kenntis which you're focused on is but one of two understandings of the MOQ..

Dan:
You keep assuming I am confused. But David, I put together the book
you're quoting from. You can't give me credit for at least a smidgen
of understanding? I guess not. You must think me a hopeless case.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Those things exist don't they? These *things* by their nature are static yes? Some static quality experiences other static quality. Can you at least agree with that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> Saying things exist and saying we experience them is two different
>>>>>> ideas. These things emerge from experience. They do not exist prior to
>>>>>> experience. What may be even more confusing is that they do not
>>>>>> not-exist either. There is absolutely nothing we can say about
>>>>>> anything prior to experience. So no, again, we do not agree!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay.. Can't say I disagree..
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> Don't you mean you can't say you agree?
>>>
>>> I agree though..  There's two sides to the coin… You are looking at the green side of the apple and saying 'The apple is green!' - is that wrong? No. But there is also another side of the apple which is red..
>>
>> Dan:
>> I am not saying you are wrong and I am right. I am saying there are
>> higher quality ideas than others and it seems best to seek them out.
>
> Right.. You are saying that your ideas are higher quality than mine.. Sure… I get that.

Dan:
No, you don't get it. I am saying the MOQ is of higher value than the
everyday way of thinking that objects exist independently of subjects.
It isn't my idea. It is Robert Pirsig's idea. And yes, I think his
ideas are of higher quality than yours. Otherwise, I doubt we would be
participating in this discussion.

>
>>> "But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics are made of. Purity, identified, ceases to be purity. Objections to pollution are a form of pollution. The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life." - Lila
>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>> There is only experience. You are making it harder than it has to be.
>>>>>>>> How is that better?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it matches our experience better.   It would be nice to say that all experience is just DQ. That's it. End of story.  But that's just not the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> Just? Just? Do you even realize what you're saying? Just?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. It's part of the title. I think there is more to experience than 'just' DQ. That's my whole point.
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> Well, again, if Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous, then
>>>> your point doesn't seem to hold much value. You seem to insist on
>>>> experiencing a world of objects that exist prior to that experience.
>>>> Therefore you believe there is more to experience than 'just DQ.' Is
>>>> that what you're saying?
>>>>
>>>> Instead, the MOQ says that these objects, these patterns of value, do
>>>> not exist prior to experience. Every 'thing' emerges from experience.
>>>
>>> Right I agree with that..  Objects do not exist prior to experience..
>>>
>>> Now before you spit your chips - the MOQ also says that it is a *good* idea to think that these objects exist prior to our ideas about them…
>>>
>>> "Within the MOQ, the idea that static patterns of value start with the inorganic level is considered to be a good idea. "  - RMP
>>>
>>> Clearly both are ideas - so why mention this?   Because it's Quality first, then ideas…   It thus depends on which quality experience your talking about - whether it exists prior to another static quality experience(is static quality or Dynamic Quality)...
>>
>> Dan:
>> I don't see that RMP mentions Dynamic Quality here. Where does he say
>> static experience? Am I missing something? He is talking about ideas
>> before matter here while at the same time saying the idea that matter
>> comes first is a good idea. Yes, it is confusing but only if we forget
>> the context of this quote. We were discussing physics and how
>> researchers assume the object of their inquiry exists independently of
>> the observation. At least that's how I remember it.
>
> When we talk about the value of the pre-existing subjects of Idealism or the pre-existing objects of Materialism these values are static and in opposition to the non-static Dynamic Quality.    Ultimately those subjects and objects *are not experienced* and so do not exist, but it is sometimes a good idea to assume that they *are experienced* and do exist.
>
> From a static point of view - when we say that something which isn't experienced doesn't exist - this means that literally - if there is no experience - such as me experiencing a cat in a box - then it doesn't exist.  But I do experience the idea in my head - of a cat in a box - and so that idea exists.  Furthermore -  it also might be a *good* idea to think that the cat actually exists in the box if we see any evidence of a cat in a box.

Dan:
Is the cat alive or dead? No fair opening the box to find out, either. :)

"There's a principle in physics that if a thing can't be distinguished
from anything else it doesn't exist. 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]

Dan comments:
This seems to be your problem too. You keep saying if something isn't
experienced it doesn't exist. But that isn't quite what Robert Pirsig
is on about. He is saying value creates the thing, not the other way
around.

>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>> That's what I've been saying all along. Did you just realize that? If
>>>>>>>> the MOQ sees Dynamic Quality and experience as synonymous, then we do
>>>>>>>> not experience intellectual patterns of value. Intellectual patterns
>>>>>>>> of quality are symbolic representations of experience, not experience
>>>>>>>> itself. If you do not agree with Robert Pirsig's premise, then you do
>>>>>>>> not agree with the MOQ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with what you write.  Static quality is always after this primary experience. Yes.  When we break up experience we break it up into sq and DQ. DQ is the source of sq experience.. but it is still all experience nonetheless..  I don't see why there has to be one 'true' experience.  Why can't experience be both DQ and sq?  Interestingly - the quality of an idea is how well it matches our experience.  In this case, I think it matches our experience well to say that both DQ and sq exist and are a part of experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> No, you do NOT agree with what I am saying! How can you even think
>>>>>> that? We do not break experience into 2 parts. There is experience and
>>>>>> there there is that which emerges from experience. Once defined,
>>>>>> static quality no longer applies to Dynamic Quality, or experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but there is also static quality which is not intellectual is there not?
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> You are obfuscating the issue here by attempting to change the
>>>> discussion. I do not believe I ever said there is only intellectual
>>>> quality.
>>>
>>> How does any other static quality exist if it isn't experienced?
>>
>> Dan:
>> It emerges from experience.
>
> I agree with you ultimately static quality is but a memory of experience.. But there is more to the MOQ than normal idealism.  It is idealism which follow Quality.  It is a good idea to say that static quality exists and we experience it, independent of the fact that ultimately all static quality comes from Dynamic Quality..

Dan:
Well, if it is a good idea for you, then it is a good idea for you. I
find it rather confusing; I don't see why anyone would want to
complicate something rather simple and elegant like the MOQ.


>>
>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>> There is experience and there is that which comes later. How much
>>>>>> simpler can it be?
>>>>>
>>>>> That which comes later must be part of experience or it doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> Well, yes, it is a memory of experience. But it isn't experience. It's
>>>> a snapshot, a still frame. Experience is like a river forever flowing
>>>> while these static patterns are like a cup we have dipped from that
>>>> river. In a very real sense, you are right. That which comes later no
>>>> longer exists but as a memory. Experience has flowed on leaving behind
>>>> it these memories we often times mistake for experience itself.
>>>
>>> Right…. all our words are just descriptions of that which can never be caught..   I agree..  and I think that this is the 'ultimate' side of the coin..  The 'fundamental' side of the coin.. But there is another side
>>
>> Dan:
>> Not sure I understand this…
>
> Words are static. They cannot capture Dynamic Quality which is by definition - not static quality.  DQ is the ultimate source of all things. You keep telling me that experience is synonymous with DQ.. I agree with that.. But I think that it is sometimes good to say that we experience static quality subjects and objects…

Dan:
Obviously you haven't been reading what I wrote. I never said
Experience is synonymous with Dynamic Quality. In fact, I went to
great pains to say why saying so isn't a high quality idea.

Be that as it may, so then why are we bothering with the MOQ?

>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's a big question which hopefully you will elaborate on: How is saying that DQ and experience become synonymous different to saying that DQ is experience?
>>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> By stating Dynamic Quality IS experience we are defining it. By
>>>> stating that within the MOQ Dynamic Quality and experience become
>>>> synonymous we are associating the terms without defining them outside
>>>> of having the same implications. Does that help answer your question?
>>>
>>> Yes it does.  But however 'loosely' you would like the association it is still an association nevertheless…  Like it or not, we cannot help but define DQ as static quality..   So what Pirsig did was separate that ineffable Dynamic Quailty and left it on its own as 'Dynamic Quality'..  After putting aside the ineffable DQ - he then proceeded to do the degenerate intellectual thing and define Quality as static quality..  This makes the MOQ less degenerate than your typically intellectual construct, but degenerate nonetheless...
>>
>> Dan:
>> I would say he only defined part of Quality, that which arises from
>> experience.
>
> I would agree with that.. But however loosely you want to say it is done, he still 'defines' DQ..  You will notice Pirsig spent a whole chapter describing DQ..  If he didn't define it, we wouldn't be talking about anything right now and the MOQ wouldn't exist.

Dan:
You seem to be contradicting your previous statement here.

>
>> I think if we are careful we define Dynamic Quality by
>> what it is not and not by what it is.
>
> I agree. - But this is still a partial definition.

Dan:
Not if we exercise care.


> Thanks Dan,

You're welcome,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com