[MD] Where does DQ end and SQ begin and SQ end and DQ begin? It's all bananas isn't it?

[david buchanan]

David M said:
Let's eat a banana, and then eat another one, and experience its full flavour. I assume that as they are both bananas they have much in common, that this is the sort of pattern we can experience that we wish to call SQ. Of course, no two bananas are exactly the same, although they have a certain level of similarity/SQ. Each banana was grown in a different place, in a different soil, under a sun on different days, etc. So each banana is a bit different and we may well experience this difference in their taste and so they experience two different varieties of the full range of possible flavours for individual bananas. And this is a significant part of what we mean by difference/DQ/uniqueness.

Do we all agree with the above dear MOQers or not?


dmb says:
No, I disagree.

It really is a bummer that the MOQ's central distinction is still so widely misunderstood. 

There is Dynamic Quality and static quality, just two elements and one distinction. That's it. Keep those two elements straight and you're off to a good start. Confuse, conflate or swap those elements and you've got trouble.

One of my favorite quotes on this distinction comes from the end of chapter 29 in Lila, where Pirsig quotes William James. I think this is the key to understanding the distinction between DQ and sq, or at least it's a very neat and simple way to get a handle on these two central elements of the MOQ.

"There must always be a discrepancy between concepts [static quality] and reality [Dynamic Quality], because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing.' Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used for the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality."

Here Pirsig and James are saying that concepts are static and reality is dynamic. That's it, just two elements: concepts and reality. By reality, as we can see from the paragraphs leading up to this quote, Pirsig and James simply mean experience, specifically pure experience, pre-conceptual experience, the immediate flux of life. This is not to say that concepts are non-existent but to say the concepts are not to be confused with that primary experiential reality. Concepts are secondary additions which we add to experience, use to guide experience, to define the salient aspects of experience. 

By saying that a banana is a "pattern we can experience" you've undone the distinction. Banana is a word, a concept, a static pattern DERIVED from experience. That's why we can right say, "I ate a banana" to describe a thousand different experiences. The experience is dynamic but the static pattern "banana" is not, obviously. Unless you have trouble spelling or something, "banana" remains to be "banana" no matter how many different experiences it refers to and no matter how many different people use the word to define their experience. That's how words and concepts have to be or we wouldn't be able to communicate or think or reason. 

Reality is dynamic and is directly known. It is experience before you can put it into words or concepts. Bananas are not undefinable. Everybody knows what you mean as soon as you say "banana". We not it's not an "apple" or a "truck" or anything else. It is discontinuous with all the other words and concepts that it is not. That's how words and concepts work. We put a fence around it, so to speak, to separate it from all the other concepts. That's the definition of definition, if you will. "Fin" means end or limit, right? De FIN itely!

Experience and concepts. That's it. One is not the other. Period. They have a relationship but there will always be that discrepancy between experience is dynamic and concepts are not dynamic. Concepts are static and experience is not static.

C'mon, you guys. You can get this, right? It's not that hard.