[MD] Is experience just DQ?

[David Harding]

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.. 

In your view I contradict myself constantly when I say that Dynamic Quality is experience. And then later I will go on to say that experience is static quality..

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.

Now, I have some questions for you:





On 21/01/2013, at 6:52 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:33 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Dan,
>> 
>> 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.
> 
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> "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.
> 
>> 
>> " 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.
> 
>> 
>> 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 it is.

> 
>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> That's a good reason, sure. But is an Internet discussion group really
>>> the best place to be improving one's patterns of life?
>> 
>> I think it's a good place to improve the cultural (social and intellectual) patterns of ones life.
> 
> Dan:
> Though I tend to enjoy these little moments here I think there are
> better places: a quiet mountain trail, a conversation with a beautiful
> woman in a dimly lighted room, a baby cooing in my arms, a cat
> snuggled in my lap... all these moments have and had a far greater
> affect upon the improvement of my life. They effected a change in my
> very soul far more deeply than any intellectual discussion has ever
> done.
> 
>> 
>>> 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!
> 
>> 
>>>> 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?
> 
>> 
>>>>>>>> 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?
> 
>> 
>>>> But here we are. Ruining DQ…
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> How does one ruin experience?
>> 
>> By describing this fundamentally ineffable and undivided experience into different levels and terms such as DQ and sq.
> 
> Dan:
> One cannot ruin experience. When we begin the defining, these static
> patterns that emerge no longer apply to experience. They are concepts,
> not experience. They all come after experience. They are not
> experience itself.
> 
>> 
>>>> 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?
> 
>> 
>>>> 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.
> 
>> 
>>>>>> 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.
> 
>> 
>> 
>>>>>> "This first division of the Metaphysics of Quality now covered the spectrum of experience from primitive mysticism(DQ) to quantum mechanics(inorganic patterns). What remained for Phaedrus to do next was fill in the gaps as carefully and methodically as he could."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "But with a Metaphysics of Quality the empirical experience is not an experience of 'objects.' It's an experience of value patterns produced by a number of sources, not just inorganic patterns. "
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So Pirsig also explains how these two experiences of DQ and sq are different..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "But it is not until the baby is several months old that he will begin to really understand enough about that enormously complex correlation of sensations and boundaries and desires called an object to be able to reach for one. This object will not be a primary experience. It will be a complex pattern of static values derived from primary experience(DQ)."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Notice how he uses the word primary? It is this primary experience which is DQ but that doesn't mean that we don't experience static quality or that it is illusory as a Buddhist would say..
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> I think it is good to use the qualifier 'primary' with experience to
>>>>> help illustrate what he is getting at. Note how he says: This object
>>>>> (pattern of value) will not be a primary experience. See? It is
>>>>> derived from experience. It (static quality) is a memory of
>>>>> experience, not experience itself.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes. You are continually pointing me towards DQ.  I can see that DQ is ultimately primary experience and no thing else really exists.   In fact, you are just telling me right back here what I said to you.  I agree with you that DQ is primary and all that we experience. But here we are.. Looking at computer screens and typing to one another and living out our static lives, full of static things.    These are static things and exist and are real and we experience them.  They come from this *primary* experience(DQ) but we experience these things as well.. They are as real as rocks… or so the expression goes.  In the MOQ we experience includes both DQ *and* sq.  Yes sq comes from DQ but we still experience sq.  This is what I'm pointing towards.  An understanding of the MOQ which says that we experience DQ *and* static quality and they are both real and not illusory.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> It depends upon the definition of experience, I suppose. I do not see
>>> the need to belabor the point any further, so if it works for you,
>>> fine.
>> 
>> It doesn't really depend on a definition of experience.. I'm all for simply describing experience..
> 
> Dan:
> That's what we do. We describe experience. Once the description arises
> it is no longer experience, however.
> 
>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 'Just fixing' is the same as 'Just sitting'.   The goal for both things, indeed everything, if we are to prescribe one, is to move *away* from all mechanistic static patterns.  A broken bike is a low quality very static situation… you aren't going anywhere…  Likewise someone who is beginning Zazen practice, if they are anything like me, will likely begin by being very static and constantly thinking! Tick tick tick the mind goes… But naturally the mind will wind down..
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> Left to its own devices the mind will quite naturally run amok. If
>>>>>>>>> this were not so, what would be the point of practicing zazen or
>>>>>>>>> meditation?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes, that is why I say that this is what occurs naturally *when* someone is practicing Zazen.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So do you not agree that a major point of the book is that there is Zen in the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?  I describe above why I think they are similar.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> It depends upon who is doing the motorcycle maintenance, doesn't it? I
>>>>>>> think one of the points of ZMM was the contrast between those who make
>>>>>>> an art out of doing motorcycle maintenance and those who do not. Note
>>>>>>> that John Sutherland was an artist, a musician, and a very good one at
>>>>>>> that. And yet he had no inclination to do his own motorcycle
>>>>>>> maintenance. Was there zen in the artistry of his music? Who can say?
>>>>>>> He must have found his moment, I should think. Is there zen in the art
>>>>>>> of motorcycle maintenance? Who can say? Perhaps that's why the book is
>>>>>>> called Zen AND the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Right.  Does a dog have a Buddha nature? Answer the question and you lose your own quality… You're right - it's not smart for me to say that there is Zen IN the art of anything.   But using the MOQ we can say that DQ can be found in anything if you bring yourself to this present moment and 'just do it'.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> As long as it is understood that Dynamic Quality is the breaking
>>>>> moment. It is always there so there is really nothing to be found.
>>>> 
>>>> Dynamic Quality isn't a 'breaking moment'.  Dynamic Quality isn't any thing.  It's not even my saying that.  But you already know that, and if you're not short of something, it's pointing people like myself towards DQ. But I think perhaps this is why you seem to not want to say that experience includes both static quality and DQ because of this incorrect analogy so I'll repeat.. Dynamic Quality isn't the breaking moment.  Dynamic Quality isn't anything! It's precisely, not this, not that.  It's not even that expression saying so.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> So what are we debating here? If Dynamic Quality isn't anything then
>>> of course we cannot experience it. So according to what you say, we
>>> don't experience Dynamic Quality at all. We experience static quality.
>>> We experience a world of objects that impinge on our subjective
>>> senses. Sound familiar?
>> 
>> That's right.  There's a riddle there.. If DQ isn't anything, how do we experience it? Things have to be 'something' to experience them don't they?
> 
> Dan:
> No! Things do not exist prior to experience! They emerge from experience.
> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
>> 
>>> 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.
> 
>> 
>> 
>>>>>> You're right - if we are not aware of it, the mind will 'run amok' and naturally keep distracting us and indeed - you will never be present in moment with what it is that you are doing… But that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about 'just fixing' and 'just sitting'.  This is being aware of what we are doing and not letting the mind distract us in this way...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "The explanation for this contradiction is the belief that you do not free yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other contrary static patterns. That is sometimes called 'bad karma chasing its tail.' You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, you master them with such proficiency that they become an unconscious part of your nature. You get so used to them you completely forget them and they are gone. There in the center of the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic freedom is found."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> Well, I think this pertains to ritualistic Buddhist practices and not
>>>>> so much to such rational endeavors as motorcycle maintenance. But we
>>>>> have spoken of this before…
>>>> 
>>>> We have and round and round and round we go.. But I think that if we care and we keep talking about these things, our thinking will improve and naturally we become better people as a result.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> Only to a point... when it becomes apparent there is no need in going
>>> on, the discussion will cease. Additionally, I do not believe there is
>>> anything natural about becoming a better person. If left to our own
>>> devices we would most certainly devolve into the brutish nightmares
>>> from which we emerged.
>> 
>> If we relegate the word 'natural' to only those things which are biological in nature sure.. Because if we are left to our own biological devices then yes, that's right.  However -   thankfully we are in cultures which stop us from going in that direction.   The better the culture, the better the direction.
> 
> Dan:
> Are we? My, you could have fooled me. Are you sure we live in the same culture?
> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, this is where I see the quote you provide below being significant...
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> "... Phaedrus wrote on one of his slips, "It seems clear that no mechanistic pattern exists toward which life is heading, but has the question been taken up of whether life is heading away from mechanistic patterns?"
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The MOQ is an answer to that question.  All *things* are moving towards DQ.  Zen recognises this and shows us how to directly experience DQ. However the MOQ differs with Zen which says that these patterns of experience are an illusion…
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> "The word “I” like the word “self” is one of the trickiest words in any metaphysics. Sometimes it is an object, a human body; sometimes it is a subject, a human mind. I believe there are number of philosophic systems, notably Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism,” that call the “I” or “individual” the central reality. Buddhists say it is an illusion. So do scientists. The MOQ says it is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality." - LC
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> So in other words in the MOQ (unlike Zen where the patterns are illusory) the patterns quality is valued.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> Well, it may be a matter of semantics but Buddhism doesn't say the
>>>>>>>>> patterns are an illusion... the self is seen as an illusion. So far as
>>>>>>>>> I know Buddhism has nothing to say about patterns of quality.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The MOQ, on the other hand, has lots to say about patterns of quality.
>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen where it says patterns are an illusion, nor have I seen
>>>>>>>>> where it says they are not an illusion. I think that might be the
>>>>>>>>> wrong way to approach the MOQ. For instance, a thought can be an
>>>>>>>>> illusion but it is still a pattern of value.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You agree that Buddhism says that the self is an illusion.. So we're clear here this is the definition of an illusion..
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> noun
>>>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>>> something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.
>>>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>>> the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension.
>>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>> an instance of being deceived.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The MOQ categorises the self as a "collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality."   If Buddhism claims that the self (static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality) is illusory then unless you say that static patterns can exist without the humans who created them(they can't) then Buddhism claims that static patterns are illusory.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> I suspect the Buddhist conception of self is different than the MOQ.
>>>>>>> Don't you think so too?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No. Just as I think the colour blue is the same in the USA as the colour blue in France and all monotheistic religions are describing the same God.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> I think this contradicts the notion that culture dictates what we take
>>>>> from experience. Remember the green flash of the sun in Lila? And how
>>>>> Phaedrus had wondered why he had never seen a green sun? And then he
>>>>> read a book on yachting and it told him to look for it? And when he
>>>>> did, he saw a green sun?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes I remember.  But translations don't include caveats that the french word for 'blue' actually means a different blue than the english 'blue'.  Our words all describe the same thing. If they didn't, translation, however approximate, wouldn't be possible.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> So you believe there are blue objects in the world and everyone sees
>>> these blue objects as the same. This is contradictory to what the MOQ
>>> says about us being immersed in culture. Robert Pirsig points out the
>>> fallacy of a subject viewing a world of objects; instead, he states
>>> our perception of the world is always colored by our cultural mores.
>>> It would seem our disagreements run quite a bit deeper than I
>>> realized.
>> 
>> No, I really don't think so. Do we both agree that translation books generally work? Yes. No disagreement there!  You just seem confused as to the difference between a dictionary definition and a philosophy?  Philosophy uses words which have relatively fixed meanings.  It uses those words by arranging them in a certain way.. a certain quality - to create a pattern. A philosophical intellectual pattern of value..  The philosophy is not the individual words within it. It is the collection of them which creates a quality uniquely it's own.
> 
> Dan:
> A translation is always dependent upon the life experiences of the
> translator. There is always something lost. The thing is, if a
> translation is needed then unless the reader also understands the
> original language (in which case why is a translation needed?) they
> can never grasp the essential notions of the original author's work.
> They understand the translator's notion of the original author's work.
> 
> While I appreciate your attempt at schooling this poor boy, I assure
> you I do know the difference between a dictionary and a philosophy.
> Could you please be a little more condescending next time?
> 
>> 
>>>>>> The self in Buddhism is the same dictionary definition self as the self in the MOQ.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> Really! Buddhism is 2500 years old. It began long before any
>>>>> dictionary existed. Still, let's look and see:
>>>>> 
>>>>> self:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1.    the distinct individuality or identity of a person or thing
>>>>> 2.    a person's usual or typical bodily make-up or personal
>>>>> characteristics: she looked her old self again
>>>>> 3.    rare good self , good selves  a polite way of referring to or
>>>>> addressing a person (or persons), used following your, his, her,  or
>>>>> their
>>>>> 4.    one's own welfare or interests: he only thinks of self
>>>>> 5.    an individual's consciousness of his own identity or being
>>>>> 6.    philosophy the self  that which is essential to an individual, esp
>>>>> the mind or soul in Cartesian metaphysics; the ego
>>>>> 7.    a bird, animal, etc, that is a single colour throughout, esp a
>>>>> self-coloured pigeon [dictionary.com]
>>>>> 
>>>>> If Buddhism sees the self as an illusion then how do you reconcile
>>>>> that with these definitions? I see nothing here to indicate that the
>>>>> self is an illusion.
>>>> 
>>>> Me either.  That's why in Buddhism it's necessary to say that the 'small self in an illusion' rather than just say the word 'self'.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> So the dictionary definition of self is not the same as the Buddhist
>>> definition of self. But you just said it was. Can you see why I grow
>>> confused with your words?
>> 
>> Unfortunately no. Both selves have the same definition. The Buddhist self has further explanation for why it is different (aka an illusion).  The word self means the same thing in both contexts..
> 
> Dan:
> Arrgghh!
> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This is projection but what good is a Metaphysics if you can't project it onto things and interpret what others are saying in a coherent, better way?   That's the whole point of a Metaphysics;  to categorise things fundamentally and put them in perspective in order to live a good life.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> If it works, sure.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It works if it's good.  And it's good to see experience as including both Dynamic Quality *and* static quality.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> It would depend on how one defines experience, would it not? Since we
>>>>> are using the MOQ, it seems better to define it as synonymous with
>>>>> Dynamic Quality. Static quality emerges from experience.
>>>> 
>>>> Static quality emerges from experience of DQ. Yes. I don't disagree. BUT we can add that some static quality experiences other static quality. Like the city of Los Angeles experiencing an earthquake.  Or Dan Glover experiencing my writing now.  Static qualities interact with and value one another and these static values are a part of experience.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> Static quality emerges from experience, not experience of Dynamic
>>> Quality. That is redundant and confusing. So you do disagree. You are
>>> just not seeing how you disagree. That is why I say you need to ask
>>> the right questions.
>>> 
>>> There is nothing wrong with saying the city of Los Angeles experiences
>>> an earthquake. We use the term experience in various ways. But when it
>>> comes to the MOQ we should strive to be as precise as possible.
>> 
>> Precision. Exactly.  So - what do we mean when we say the city of LA experienced an earthquake? Is not a philosophical idea better which can explain what we mean when we say this than one which cannot?
> 
> Dan:
> No! It is a newspaper headline!
> 
>> It city of LA experienced something didn't it?
> 
> Dan:
> No! Not in the same sense that we are talking about!
> 
>> We experience things all the time don't we?
> 
> Dan:
> No! In the MOQ experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous.
> 
>> 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!
> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that we don't need an end point before we ask why.  As the title of this post suggests, I think that every thing has a why including Zazen. The reason is that we can always ask - Why does x exist? That's about as fundamental a question as you can ask.  But that's not how all why's come to us.   One of the first things we empirically experience is a certain level of quality.  If the level of quality is low, such as with a broken motorcycle, we will ask, 'why is the motorcycle broken?'.   In other words - we don't need an end point to ask this question!  The point is that we are moving *Away* from the low static quality situation and towards some undefined betterness.  It is this movement away from static quality and towards DQ that can be found as the goal of all things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that, sure. I would say though that the stilling of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal discursive voice continually running through one's head has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no why, no end point. The whys exist within that internal discursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> voice as it stutters the world into existence. When that voice stops,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the whys of world stop.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, and so what we can do with that inner voice thanks to the MOQ is designate the stopping of the mind an intellectual symbol - "Dynamic Quality" - and use those words to intellectually represent the stopping of the mind.  Without the words 'Dynamic Quality' the MOQ would be much poorer as a result.   That's why I disagree and say that the voice does have an end point during meditation; an end point which is called Dynamic Quality.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose one could call it anything they like but they would still be
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect in naming it. I know Dynamic Quality is used in Lila as a
>>>>>>>>>>> reference to neither this nor that. To introduce any symbol is a
>>>>>>>>>>> mistake, in my opinion. Dynamic Quality is an intellectual construct,
>>>>>>>>>>> not an end point to meditation.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Dynamic Quality is an intellectual construct the same as trees are an intellectual construct the same as human beings are an intellectual construct the same as books are an intellectual construct…  All things are intellectual constructs - including Dynamic Quality.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore the end point to meditation is Dynamic Quality.  This statement is mystically degenerate but intellectually valuable. If you don't want to talk about the static quality intellectual constructs of static quality and Dynamic Quality then your presence on this forum is very peculiar.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> You seem to be saying the endpoint of meditation is experience. Yes?
>>>>>>>>> And perhaps my presence here is peculiar. I hadn't planned on
>>>>>>>>> returning but here I am. I find that a bit peculiar myself.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes. Well how do you see the difference between Zen and the MOQ? Are they the same thing to you?
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> I would say there is no endpoint to meditation. It may or may not
>>>>>>> bring us closer to experience depending upon the ability of the
>>>>>>> practitioner but that is not an endpoint. Experience is like a river
>>>>>>> always flowing from here to there. It has no endpoint.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The MOQ does have an endpoint. It is a metaphysics for ordering our
>>>>>>> experience but it is not experience. Robert Pirsig says that writing a
>>>>>>> metaphysics is a degenerate activity. Is zen a degenerate activity
>>>>>>> too?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree with this - if we create a distinction between experience and primary experience and say..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "It is a metaphysics for ordering our experience but it is not primary experience."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> I don't think that is necessary as long as we go along with the notion
>>>>> that in the MOQ, Dynamic Quality and experience are seen as
>>>>> synonymous. A metaphysics cannot be primary experience. That is a
>>>>> given in that it is a collection of intellectual patterns of value.
>>>> 
>>>> We experience a metaphysics. That metaphysics, like all things, has come about as a result of primary experience.  Where's the contradiction?
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> We do not experience a metaphysics. We intellectually construct a
>>> metaphysics and use it to order these symbolic representations we take
>>> to be reality. Experience is ever-flowing. A metaphysics is by
>>> definition a set of intellectual patterns.
>> 
>> Yes. Which are part of  'experience'.
> 
> Dan:
> No! Intellectual patterns EMERGE from experience! They are not experience!
> 
>> 
>>>> That's the endpoint? How strange.  I agree with the MOQ but I feel like the MOQ is only just beginning...
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> Well, obviously I do not see you agreeing with the MOQ, otherwise we
>>> would not be having this discussion. So what do you agree with? I
>>> think you agree with your notion of  the MOQ the same way Bodvar
>>> believed in his notion of it.
>> 
>> Okay. Well I really hope that my explaining here has helped you see otherwise..
> 
> Dan:
> Your hope is unfounded.
> 
>> 
>>>> 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?
> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question of why can have an intellectual but also a DQ answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would that be a non-answer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A DQ answer as I explained above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Dynamic Quality answer is not this, not that. It isn't rational.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> An 'actual' Dynamic Quality answer is 'not this, not that' yes.  But even those words are not Dynamic Quality.  So really the words 'Dynamic Quality' are an intellectual designation used in the MOQ to denote what Dynamic Quality is.  This is degeneracy yes, but the person who doesn't ruin the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who doesn't exist and to who no thought has been given.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it isn't rational…
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> To be clear Dynamic Quality is not just things which aren't rational.. Dynamic Quality isn't any thing including things which aren't rational.  It isn't even an intellectual construct but we use these words to degeneratively create an intellectual metaphysics which beautifully matches our experience.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> I would say the MOQ orders experience in a better way than
>>>>>>>>> subject/object metaphysics. It doesn't match our experience though. No
>>>>>>>>> static quality construct can do that.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That depends on what you call 'experience'.  Is experience just Dynamic Quality? I think that experience can be both Dynamic Quality and static quality depending on the experience..  Often we can distinguish between the two by saying that Dynamic Quality is *direct* experience and static patterns of experience are created as a result of this direct experience.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> As I said earlier, in the MOQ experience comes first. Experience is
>>>>>>> seen as synonymous with Dynamic Quality. Static quality emerges from
>>>>>>> experience. Static quality isn't some pre-existing set of patterns
>>>>>>> waiting to be experienced. Think of the hot stove example in Lila.
>>>>>>> Should a person sit upon a hot stove it isn't the heat that gets them
>>>>>>> off the stove. It is a dim apprehension of they know not what. It is
>>>>>>> only later that they label it heat and cuss about it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Right.  DQ is primary(as Pirsig would say) experience.  A mystic would get off the hot stove faster than a scientist.  But that's not to say that the experiences of a scientist when he looks at inorganic particles under a microscope are un-real or not experienced either.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> As soon as experience is relegated to static quality pattens it is no
>>>>> longer experience. It is a memory of experience.
>>>> 
>>>> Until we 'experience' those memories as intellectual patterns of value.  Or are you going to tell me we don't experience intellectual patterns of value?
>>> 
>>> 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.
> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We experience static quality. If we didn't experience static quality then it isn't a stretch to say that it doesn't really exist.   And then it isn't really a stretch to want to continually point to DQ and want to avoid applying the MOQ to everyday life because 'it is about things we don't really experience anyway….' And of course, this is what you continually want to do. Please try and see the quality of another perspective..
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> I am unsure how you know what I want but be that as it may... all I am
>>> doing is pointing out the redundancy in your statements. If you wish
>>> to believe there is a world of objects that you as a subject
>>> experience then by all means do so. But you are making a mistake when
>>> you think that is what the MOQ is saying.
>>> 
>>> It is not. And we are not here to consider other perspectives. We are
>>> here to consider the perspective of the MOQ. You seem to enjoy heaping
>>> ridicule on me by twisting my words. That's okay. I'm used to it,
>>> which is why I rarely participate here any longer. As I said, I had
>>> hopes for better but, oh well…
>> 
>> Again, the MOQ doesn't oppose SOM.  SOM thinking can be quite good.  In fact it's built into the structure of the MOQ within a larger perspective.. .  I've never said that I think there are pre-existing subjects and objects.  I do however, think that it can be *valuable* at times to think so.  This is the distinction of mine which I am trying to make... Such as when I look at this computer in front of me. I don't think that it is a figment of my imagination.  I think that I experience it.  It's a good idea to think that it exists before I think about it. In the MOQ there isn't one *right* answer about what's fundamental as you seem to think there is.  The MOQ allows multiple competing ideas to exist simultaneously.
> 
> Dan:
> So you believe the MOQ espouses the notion that anything goes. That
> explains a great deal.
> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All static things including meditation can be questioned.  That is not their goal but they can all be questioned with a 'why?'  Zen does have a why whose answer is DQ. That's what Koans are aren't they?  What about sitting without Koans? Why do we sit? Don't we find the answer to this question by sitting?  In this regard, Zen doesn't ignore the role of the intellect but it's goal is not intellectual. It shows us how to 'overcome' the intellect by putting it to sleep.  The same *can* be true for motorcycle maintenance.   Through mastery of motorcycle maintenance we can put the intellect to sleep as well. In fact that is the mastery of it.  When it goes to sleep we go 'aha' and we have a breakthrough and discover what is actually wrong with the machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When an artful mechanic acts they do so by thinking to fulfill an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inadequacy in the machine they are fixing. A mystic through non-action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reveals the world without thought. What you seem to be asking is: can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they be one and the same? I would say it is possible but doubtful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while another person might say it is very likely. I suspect we might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both be both right and wrong... probably at the same time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't like that answer as it is non-intellectual.  I like philosophy because it attempts, however badly or well it might do so, to capture the impossible and give some intellectual meaning to our existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the only meaning to existence is to be free of existence?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the viewpoint of Zen. But I am not a Zen Buddhist so I don't fully agree with that.  As I've said and is explained in Lila, we are alive, and being alive we can't help but ruin the ultimately undefined nature of the universe with fixed metaphysical meanings.  Picking up bar ladies and writings metaphysics are a part of life.  So as we're alive and ruining this ultimately undefinable nature of the universe, we might as well get these definitions of ours as good as we can!  One of those definitions is saying that Dynamic Quality exists and the meaning to existence is to both experience Dynamic Quality *and* improve quality of things.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually I was thinking of this quote from Lila:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> "... Phaedrus wrote on one of his slips, "It seems clear that no
>>>>>>>>>>> mechanistic pattern exists toward which life is heading, but has the
>>>>>>>>>>> question been taken up of whether life is heading away from
>>>>>>>>>>> mechanistic patterns?" [Lila]
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Since the MOQ sees Dynamic Quality as synonymous with experience to
>>>>>>>>>>> say we experience Dynamic Quality is a bit of a misnomer. Since there
>>>>>>>>>>> is no mechanistic pattern toward which our existence is leading, isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> it better to question if it is heading away from it?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Right.  But as I mention above, we are doing more than just moving away from these static patterns..  We are also creating static patterns as a result of experiencing DQ and these are not illusory as the Buddhists say.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> I see you saying we experience experience. Is that what you mean? But
>>>>>>>>> what does that mean? Also, I find it confusing when you say the
>>>>>>>>> Buddhists claim static patterns are an illusion. I should think the
>>>>>>>>> MOQ states that we are a collection of static patterns of value but
>>>>>>>>> these patterns are provisional. They only work until something better
>>>>>>>>> comes along. Buddhists have nothing to say about patterns of value,
>>>>>>>>> however.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The Buddhists have nothing to say about patterns of value because the MOQ was created long after Buddhism existed.   However, we can use the MOQ to describe what Zen Buddhists are saying in a beautiful way….
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Try this example from RMP in LC:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a “self” that is independent of inorganic, biological, social or intellectual patterns. There is no “self” that contains these patterns. These patterns contain the self. This denial agrees with both religious mysticism and scientific knowledge. In Zen, there is reference to “big self” and “small self” Small self is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So using the MOQ we can say that the small self of Zen Buddhism is the patterns.  Thus as we know, in Zen Buddhism, the small self is an illusion which is to be overcome by Zen practice and reveal the Big self which is there all along.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> So you are saying the patterns like the self are an illusion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am saying that according to Zen Buddhism they are yes.  In the MOQ the small self exists and we call this small self -  static patterns of value.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> That is why I don't think it is good to mix metaphors.
>>>> 
>>>> Well you disagree then with both myself and Robert Pirsig here...
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> Okay. Have it your way…
>> 
>> Well it's not 'my way'.  LIke I said - Pirsig did what you call 'mixed metaphors'.  I don't see it as 'mixing metaphors'. I see it as applying the MOQ to see things in a better context. (Which to me is the whole point of a Metaphysics).
> 
> Dan:
> I think you misunderstood me. Robert Pirsig did not mix metaphors. You
> did. First, you said static patterns are real, that they exist. Then
> you said they are an illusion. Which is it? Are they both an illusion
> and real simultaneously?
> 
>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Discovering this answer by the emptying out of the mind… Is this really a rational activity?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely. One steeps the mind in the problem, considering every
>>>>>>>>>>> angle, every possible solution, and then just sets the problem aside.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Rational:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> adjective1.
>>>>>>>>>> agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
>>>>>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>>>>> having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
>>>>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>>>> being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectlyrational.
>>>>>>>>>> 4.
>>>>>>>>>> endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
>>>>>>>>>> 5.
>>>>>>>>>> of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> What is rational activity to you?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> The dictionary definitions work for me.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> To me it is intellectual activity…  Intellectually deciding to set the problem aside, and following though on that decision - is to no longer rationally think about that problem.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> But the act of setting aside the problem is agreeable to reason, is it
>>>>>>>>> not? It is exercising sound judgement, is it not? Doesn't it pertain
>>>>>>>>> to rational faculty? Rather than beating one's head against a
>>>>>>>>> seemingly intractable problem it is sometimes better to set it aside.
>>>>>>>>> This is a rational decision, is it not?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes. The decision making to do that is intellectual as I say above… But also as I say above - *following through on that decision - is to no longer rationally think about the problem*.  There is a doing which is non-intellectual and non-rational. It's before all intellectual distinction..
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> Well, actually it is after the intellectual distinction, is it not?
>>>>>>> Otherwise there would be no distinction.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *I have a thought*. Now is it impossible for me to ever experience DQ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> You don't experience Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality is seen as
>>>>> synonymous with experience. Do you experience experience? No.
>>>>> Experience comes first and then thoughts emerge.
>>>> 
>>>> That's right. And included in those thoughts are the thoughts of mine which say that I exist. These thoughts also say that because I exist, this means that I experience and can respond to something we have intellectually designated with the name - Dynamic Quality.   This is called the deductive power of the MOQ.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> And your point?
>> 
>> Is missed!  Hopefully it has been clearer in these responses.
> 
> Dan:
> Clear as mud. Thank you.
> 
>> 
>>>>>> But if I say that we can experience DQ after we experience sq then that seems to be a contradiction - for DQ is the source of all things. But it is not a contradiction when we realise that the term DQ itself is a contradiction.  The reason why we use this term 'Dynamic Quality' is to intellectually value it and place it within a metaphysics which closely resembles our experience.  Included in resembling our experience is saying that we can experience *both* DQ and sq.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> You seem to be making Dynamic Quality into a kind of object or pattern
>>>>> of value that can be experienced. But objects and patterns of value
>>>>> are secondary to experience. If it helps someone to understand this,
>>>>> then by all means use the term primary experience. But once it is
>>>>> understood that experience and Dynamic Quality are seen as synonymous
>>>>> in the MOQ there is no reason to qualify experience in such a way. I
>>>>> think it confuses the issue.
>>>> 
>>>> Well naturally here I disagree. I think it confuses the issue to only relegate experience to be synonymous with Dynamic Quality and that's it.  DQ is primary experience yes.  But we still experience every other thing which isn't DQ. This is why Pirsig saw it necessary to create a static Metaphysics.  If we don't experience sq, what does it matter? It doesn't. This is what a mystic will say and on this point they are somewhat wrong.  The reason why static quality matters is because we cannot avoid it. While ultimately we primarily only experience DQ -  pretending that is *all* we experience is wrong. There is this whole other unavoidable world of picking and choosing which exists whether a mystic likes it or not.   Good is a noun. So we might as well get our picking and choosing as good as we possibly can.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> It seems apparent that you believe I am acting on a pretense so I am
>>> unsure why you bother answering me.
>> 
>> I don't think that at all. I have found your responses honest and well cared for.  I wouldn't continue this discussion for this long if I didn't think so.
> 
> Dan:
> I re-read your previous statement. You clearly said I am pretending
> that Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous. I offered a
> quote defending that notion yet you persist in saying that not only am
> I confused but Robert Pirsig is confusing his own metaphysics by
> saying so. So, I feel justified in asking again, if you believe I am
> acting on a pretense, why on earth do you continue engaging me?
> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This too though is a rational activity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One has purposely set aside the work until it is time to work again.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I purposely set aside time to sit in meditation.  Is meditation for me now a rational activity?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> That depends. Do you have a goal?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the static quality goal of experiencing DQ. But as soon as I sit and say.. "I am here to experience DQ." Then I won't ever experience DQ. This is why the 'goal' of meditation is really 'no goal'..  This contradiction is explained by the gateless gate.. From a static quality everyday perspective the gate is the goal.. But once you experience the goal you realise that there is no goal because the goal is the source of all things..  This same experience can be found when we achieve many different goals..  However the results of our toils is less apparent when we sit.  This is because all we have been doing is perfecting something as simple as sitting and not trying to master our maintenance of a bike which, all going well, would result in a fixed bike and the art which produced it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> So you see, a goal to experience experience is a fool's goal.
>>>>>>>>> Experience is right here! You already experience! In order to repair a
>>>>>>>>> bike one must be rationally aware of the steps involved in such a
>>>>>>>>> process, otherwise they are a fool attempting the impossible just as
>>>>>>>>> the person who sits in meditation attempting to experience experience.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> As mentioned previously - I think there is a difference between following the steps to repair a bike when you know what the problem is and determining the problem with the bike.   In this regard just sitting is no different to just fixing..   Sure, there are rational components to fixing a bike which aren't part of sitting once the problem has been diagnosed but, as any good mechanic will tell you, this isn't the hard part of fixing a bike..
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> I am not sure how familiar you are with today's machines but they
>>>>>>> actually tell a mechanic what is wrong with them. All one need do is
>>>>>>> hook the machine up to a scanner or code reader and it will tell the
>>>>>>> mechanic where the problem resides.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On the other hand, older machines do require a diagnosis by the
>>>>>>> mechanic. Still, this requires a mechanic to follow a rational set of
>>>>>>> actions, such as testing the components, checking the manual, asking
>>>>>>> other mechanics for advice, etc. And yes it is very difficult
>>>>>>> sometimes to figure out the problem. Key word, figure. Think.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Right. It involves the intellect. But the intellect alone cannot fix a bike.  It is DQ which creates the intellectual values of the mechanic.  When the mechanic has exhausted all intellectual options and is stuck, if he is aware - it will be DQ which guides him out of his stuckness.  DQ creates all things including all thoughts which a mechanic has about how to fix the broken bike.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> Experience is the magical word here. Experience creates all things.
>>>>> Experience guides him out of his stuckness. Everything else is
>>>>> secondary, including intellect.
>>>> 
>>>> Experience of what? Dynamic Quality or static quality? Dynamic Quality guides him out of his stuckness not 'experience' which could be experience of static quality or DQ.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> See how confusing this is? First, you claim we experience both Dynamic
>>> Quality and static quality but now you say we don't, that Dynamic
>>> Quality is the guide. But David. Dynamic Quality is seen as synonymous
>>> in the MOQ. Read your statement again and tell me it makes any sense
>>> in the context of what we are discussing here... namely, the MOQ.
>> 
>> Right.. See it as this.. a triangle if you will…  We start out with DQ.. This (undivided experience), it is then broken up into the two terms static quality and Dynamic Quality.  Both represent experience in their own unique way.   This is an important distinction.  Whenever we open our mouths and speak it is all our human based static quality ideas..  Attempts at capturing that which cannot be caught.
> 
> Dan:
> There is experience and there is that which comes later. How much
> simpler can it be?
> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mystic on the other hand strives to set aside thought. Working a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> koan has nothing to do with rationality. A typical Westerner may think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that working a koan is the same as thinking about it but that isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so. Even if the practitioner takes on a koan in a rational way it soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes apparent that there is nothing rational about it. So they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> either give up or give in.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. But is that rational activity not a part of the discovering process of the answer for the koan.  As you say, we will rationally try and answer it and try and try, and until we give up(not good), or give in.  But give in to what? To DQ? Isn't that the whole point of the Koan? Koans point you to that place where you cannot rationally solve something.  But in order to understand that you must be rational to begin with.. see?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dynamic Quality is synonymous with experience. We cover 'it' up with
>>>>>>>>>>> thought. So thinking about a koan will only take one away, not bring
>>>>>>>>>>> one closer.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> If that is so then why have koans? Why do they exist? Aren't they just a distraction?  I don't think that they are. I think they are there to be thought about..  They point to that non rational place where you can't solve anything..  Think and think and think about them but they have no immediate answer… Like sitting, the mind will start on them at a great pace thinking about how to solve the riddle. What becomes more and more apparent by thinking about them though, is that the answer to this riddle is not rational and one will become more and more acquainted with what is the source of this riddle - DQ.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> I don't know why there are koans. I should think some zen master in
>>>>>>>>> the past thought there was some value to them but I don't know for
>>>>>>>>> sure. If one thinks about solving a koan they are only covering up
>>>>>>>>> that for which they seek, in my opinion. But that was my point. There
>>>>>>>>> is no need for koans. They are a crutch, a tool, a method of pointing
>>>>>>>>> to that which cannot be pointed to, I suppose. Once used they are
>>>>>>>>> discarded as unnecessary accoutrements.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So you don't know why there are Koans but at the same time you recognise that they are a tool and a method of pointing to that which cannot be pointed to?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> Well, as I said, that is what I suppose. Whether they are or not, I
>>>>>>> don't really know.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Okay. Well I agree with you and think that they are a tool and a method of pointing to that which cannot be pointed to.  They show point to DQ with the intellect by showing that it is not intellectual.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> Experience is not intellectual until later. Then it is no longer
>>>>> experience. It is a memory of experience.
>>>> 
>>>> Unless of course we experience intellectual values. Like the intellectual values we are discussing now - or are you going to tell me we don't experience them? I get it. There's nothing but DQ. But that's not the whole story and this is supported by the MOQ and written about by Pirsig
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> No, I do not believe you 'get it.' I cannot help but feel a growing
>>> sense of frustration. Can you point to one instance where I said
>>> "there's nothing but DQ"? Of course not, because that is not what I am
>>> saying.
>> 
>> You've said that experience is DQ.  How do you justify the existence of static quality if it isn't part of experience? I thought the MOQ is based on experience? To me, if something isn't part of experience it doesn't exist.
> 
> Dan:
> Static patterns emerge from experience. The MOQ is a better way of
> ordering reality. It organizes everything into four static quality
> levels. But the MOQ is NOT to be confused with experience itself!
> Experience is ever-flowing. The MOQ is a static representation, a
> still-shot, a map of experience, but it is NOT experience!
> 
> Also, I do not believe I ever said experience is DQ. That is something
> you said I said. No, I said in the MOQ, Dynamic Quality and experience
> become synonymous. There is a difference and this might be the block
> over which you are stumbling. Or not.
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Dan,
>>>> 
>>>> Also, I would like to re-iterate here that I really appreciate our discussions.  I can't state that enough!
>>> 
>>> I have to say, I was really looking forward to your reply, David. Now,
>>> not so much...
>>> 
>>> Color me disappointed,
>>> 
>>> Dan
>> 
>> Well conversely I'm still very much enjoying the conversation!  These discussions really do sharpen my understanding and *hopefully* my ability to explain.
> 
> Dan:
> I feel frustrated at my lack of skill in explaining myself better. I
> apologize if I come off as sounding a bit short at times.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Dan
> 
> http://www.danglover.com
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html