[MD] Is experience just DQ?

[David Harding]

Hi Dan,

>> I've removed parts of this thread in which you were being "downright rude at times, even vulgar".. or where we weren't discussing the intellectual aspects of the MOQ.  For my part in this devolution I apologise.. If you don't mind I'd like to keep our conversation civilised and hopefully away from social bickering or biological rudeness..
> 
> Dan:
> Whatever you think I am, or wish me to be, I am.

But that's where you're wrong. How easy life would be if it would require a simple change in mind to change our reality.  If only it would bend to our whims.. Such an easy life.

But of course this isn't the case.  You aren't whatever I think you are.  You are a person with your own values.  I can guess and try and understand this Dan and the values he holds and to try and put myself in his shoes to see the quality of what he is saying..   But these values I try aren't all there is to Dan.. Goodness - there must be millions of values you hold that I have no idea about.. I can only discern a rough idea of what you see as valuable by the words you use and pictures you paint here..

>>>> I think we cannot have a discussion and mutual learning about the MOQ if we don't care for the person we are conversing with or care for what they are saying.  Otherwise you might as well just be talking to a wall.. While I'm putting great effort into understanding where you're coming from, it's disheartening to see you take such a flippant attitude towards my thoughts and words..  You seem to see contradiction in what I'm saying but rarely ask any questions to see why I might think the way I do..  Alternatively I'm continually asking you questions… I'm also continually stating what I think you're saying so that you can tell me where I'm wrong and I can try and learn from that..  You don't seem much keen in trying to understand what I'm saying either…
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> As I already said, I understand what you are saying. I don't have to
>>> try. You may not like that answer, but as I also said, liking has
>>> nothing to do with it. Actually, I have asked you a number of
>>> questions but you never seem to get around to answering them in any
>>> coherent manner.
>> 
>> How can you say you understand what I write in one sentence, then the next you go on to say that I'm not answering questions in a coherent manner?  Everyones thoughts have coherence if you understand where they are coming from.. If you still see incoherence in what I write then you still musn't understand what I am saying..
> 
> Dan:
> I ask questions in an effort to help you see what you are saying. It
> has been my experience that not everyone is able to express themselves
> in a coherent manner. Whether they are able to think that way is
> beyond the scope of my knowing.

I ask questions because I'm genuinely trying to understand what you write. If it doesn't cohere with what I understand then i'll continue to ask questions until it does.  

It seems from what you wrote above that you aren't here to learn but to teach.  To 'show' me how my thoughts don't match with yours. No openness to the possibility of something better… But from what you write below perhaps this attitude was a momentary thing confined to just this response?

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

That's right. I do insist that static patterns are primary.  Remember those two perspective of the MOQ that Pirsig, Ant and I talk about?  Patterns are primary when we talk about patterns..  When we talk about patterns we assume that they are real.  Of course this is wrong but we cannot help but use these minds of ours and pretend that there are static things out there which require our understanding…

Of course; patterns aren't primary and so there is an alternative 'not this, not that' perspective of DQ.  From such a perspective it doesn't matter whether we experience static quality, Dynamic Quality or anything else because all of this is intellectual distinction which is not it..

That's why I say that experience includes DQ and sq. Because any talk of 'experience' is going to be from this sq perspective where there is an important distinction between sq and DQ - between the defined and the undefined.

>> I see the strength of saying that experience is DQ - But my point is that there is strength in saying that experience is sq as well...
>> 
>> "Dynamic Quality is good and precedes static improvement. It is the source of experience."
> 
> Dan:
> I think in subsequent writings he has moved away from stating Dynamic
> Quality is always positive, or good. There is a quote in Lila's Child
> where he says it is better to say Dynamic Quality is not this, not
> that.

I agree.. But the key part of this sentence for me is that "DQ is the source of experience."  What does Pirsig mean when he says this?  He seems to use the term experience here as synonymous with sq.


> 
>> 
>>> Now, it may well be that Robert Pirsig uses qualifiers like 'primary'
>>> and 'direct' in Lila but it must be remembered he wrote that novel to
>>> introduce the MOQ. He needed those qualifiers to explicate his
>>> metaphysics in ways others could understand. Once we form a decent
>>> understanding with the MOQ, we can see that there is no need for
>>> qualifiers so far as experience in the MOQ.
>> 
>> Don't forget the 'pure' qualifier… Is static quality a part of experience?
>> 
>> I think that it is.. I think that as many Pirsig quotes show.. static quality is a part of experience.
> 
> Dan:
> As a memory of experience, yes. As a snap shot of experience, yes. As
> experience? No.

And I disagree as do many Pirsig quotes which contradict your statement above.. And don't get me wrong.. I agree with you that ultimately all we experience and all that is included in experience is DQ..  

> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Second, you say what is not experienced doesn't exist. This statement
>>>>> doesn't make a lot of sense either. Where did you get this from? I
>>>>> don't think it is anything that Robert Pirsig has said. This seems
>>>>> like pure solipsism.
>>>> 
>>>> "The Metaphysics of Quality says pure experience is value. Experience which is not valued is not experienced. The two are the same. This is where value fits. Value is not at the tail-end of a series of superficial scientific deductions that puts it somewhere in a mysterious undetermined location in the cortex of the brain. Value is at the very front of the empirical procession." - Lila
>>>> 
>>>> And
>>>> 
>>>> " In the MOQ, nothing exists prior to the observation. The observation creates the intellectual patterns called “observed” and “observer.” Think about it. How could a subject and object exist in a world where there are no observations?" - LC
>>>> 
>>>> Pure empiricism Dan.  If you don't experience(value) it - it doesn't exist.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> Well, what you are doing here is turning things around and reading
>>> this from the perspective of value existing in the world and just
>>> waiting for someone to experience it. Note this sentence:
>>> 
>>> "Experience which is not valued is not experienced."
>>> 
>>> See, what he is saying is if experience is value, then what is not
>>> valued isn't experienced. That isn't to say what isn't experienced
>>> doesn't exist. Plenty of things we never experience exist.
>> 
>> You say this and I hear it but… What exists Dan? Please tell me. What actually exists? Only objects? Only ideas? What are they? What exists?
> 
> Dan:
> The human imagination.

This is just as much idealism as the day I heard it..

What is the human imagination?

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

I like your idealism, but I think that the MOQ provides a better understanding of the world.  

As stated from the beginning.. How easy life would be if you really did just change when I changed my mind! 

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

Uhhh. This quote doesn't say that. It actually says that the self is a collection of static patterns.  This is an idea yes. But as I ask... What is an idea?

> 
>> 
>>>> What is the standard by which you judge what is 'real' and what isn't if it isn't Quality?
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> Well, if everything is Quality then by your standards everything is real.
>> 
>> Exactly!! Please continue to take my thoughts further like this!
>> 
>> So that's exactly right!  Everything *is* real. Even bad ideas like unicorns and gremlins. They exist and are real! They don't exist inorganically or biologically, they exist culturally in myths and fables.. If you think of something - it exists! It's real. You experienced it as a thought.. Thoughts are just as much a part of experience as everything else..  Some thoughts only exist as thoughts.  Other thoughts represent real things.. Like Metaphysics for example.. That tries to represent our experience.  In fact *All* of experience not just ours..  This experience includes DQ along with sq and all of its levels.
> 
> Dan:
> You seem to be confusing the human imagination with that which is real
> and verifiable.

Yet this is exactly what you have continually said to me.  That the only thing which exists and is real is the human imagination?

> I seem to remember that I've explained this already.
> Let's try this:
> Physicists seek to find the elementary particles (what is real) that
> make up the universe. Yet the deeper they delve, the more the mystery
> grows. There are many competing theories none of which seem to agree
> on these fundamentals. They build bigger and better machines with high
> hopes that this time they will make that elusive discovery that ties
> it all together. So far, they have failed. Why is that?

Our thoughts - which are static - can never capture a fundamental reality which is not defined or static.  Does that mean we should never think? How about instead - let's get these ideas of ours as good as we can?

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

Right.. It is this harmony which is evidence that it exists before the human imagination. 

I'll repeat.. I don't deny that the idea that Quality is before the human imagination is itself an idea.. But how do we decide which ideas are true and which are false? The answer- by the Quality and haromy they produce..  The ultimate reality isn't the idea but the quality of it.   It's good to say that Quality is before the human imagination because of the better perspective such an outlook provides. Therefore it's true. See?

> If Quality is fundamental and not a part of the human imagination then
> we can never be party to the harmony it brings. In fact, it is perhaps
> better to say that Quality gives rise to the human imagination, which
> is perhaps what you are trying to say. But it does not exist apart
> from it. It is it.

I never said Quality wasn't a part of the human imagination! You continually over and over again tell me that I'm saying this but I never have and never will.. Quality creates the human imagination in its image. It cannot create the human imagination without using part of itself to do so..It has no other building blocks! And as stated previously the idea that Quality exists before the human imagination is itself an idea. But what is an idea!

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

I disagree. If only I could draw a simple picture.. 

Imagine a circle..

Now imagine a smaller circle entirely within that larger circle… 

The outer circle represents Quality existing outside the human imagination.. The smaller circle represents the human imagination.. The human imagination is still a part of Quality but Quality is separate from it... Not completely separate but separate nonetheless.

> 
>> 
>>>>>>>> But I'll answer as well with a couple of quotes from Pirsig:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "But Quality is not a factor synthesized by the mind.  Mind is a set of intellectual patterns synthesized by Quality." -RMP (Copleston)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Quality is more fundamental than an idea.. To see the world this way is better - it has more harmony - but this is no answer to someone who disagrees - as Pirsig notes:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "How do you justify the statement that Quality equals reality?".. The correct answer from a MOQ perspective is, "by the harmony it produces", but this answer is only for people who already understand the MOQ. Those who don't can't see the harmony and for them this answer is meaningless. - RMP Letter to Bodvar.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> I'm sorry, David, but these quotes have no bearing on something that
>>>>>>> exists outside the human imagination. Especially if one understands
>>>>>>> the MOQ.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How on earth does the quote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "But Quality is not a factor synthesized by the mind.  Mind is a set of intellectual patterns synthesized by Quality"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> have no bearing on Quality existing before the mind, intellect, human imagination?  That is the whole point of the quote.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> We are Quality. That is the whole point of the MOQ.
>>>> 
>>>> That's it?
>>>> 
>>>> I would say that Quality exists.. Good is a noun.  That is the MOQ.  Quality is before you, before me, before everything.. So more than just us, everything is Quality.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> "The world has no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination."
>>> 
>>> We are Quality. That's it in a nutshell, yes.
>> 
>> And as I continually say - Quality exists outside of the human imagination.
> 
> Dan:
> And we experience static quality and red is blue and up is down. We
> can all use terms not in keeping with their meaning but it does not
> lend our dialogue a sense of coherence.

If you could tell me exactly how what I am writing is not coherent that might be helpful.. But it seems that you cannot.  I await patiently.

> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that Subjects and Objects are a part of experience?   I've asked this many times but how do they exist if they are not experienced?  I mean, you're right - it is ultimately the wrong question.  But a reasonable one to anyone who sees value in the idea that things which we experience actually exist and aren't just imagined.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> If you've been following me at all, then you must see that our concept
>>>>>>>>>>> of the world always lags behind experience. Experience has moved on by
>>>>>>>>>>> the time we recognize and categorize the things emerging from 'it.'
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Experience has moved on? Is that DQ? DQ moves? You seem to be confusing DQ with the physical property of change..
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> Please try re-reading what I wrote without taking a few words out of context.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm trying to understand what you think experience is? Is it DQ? static quality? What is it?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> No one can define experience in its entirety. You are asking an
>>>>>>> impossible question for the definition goes on and on. Within the MOQ
>>>>>>> experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous. Static quality
>>>>>>> emerges from experience.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From one perspective…
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As Ant McWatt and Robert Pirsig say - there are two perspectives of the MOQ - not one.  The confusion is that you only want to talk from - the perspective of the Mystic - and not about the intellectual static divisions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> That may be so. However, from the mystical perspective there is no
>>>>> intellectual distinction to be made. So how do you explain me being
>>>>> here discussing these ideas with you good people if you think…
>>>> 
>>>> Right. I can't understand it that's why I keep talking with you. Clearly you have some interest in intellectual patterns of value..
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> Of course I do. I never made claim to being a mystic. You seem to want
>>> to hang that label on me but that isn't right.
>> 
>> Sometimes it is.  Sometimes I am a Mystic.  I'm a Mystic when it comes to DQ.
> 
> Dan:
> I am honored to meet you. I have never met a mystic before.

Yes. The MOQ is unique in that it supports someone who is Mystical yet intellectual without empirical contradiction.

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

What is the first division of the MOQ between? Two things? What are we dividing and what is the clear line between those two things?

> 
>> 
>> Experience is something which can be defined…
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience
>> 
>> It exists in an encyclopaedia. And it exists in a dictionary…
>> 
>> Your statement that something 'becomes' DQ and refusal to use the intellectual clarity of this distinction muddies the clear intellectual distinction created between DQ and sq.
> 
> Dan:
> Robert Pirsig has explained how the term 'experience' is defined in
> different ways. I am sure I have already given you the quote. No one
> ever said the term experience cannot be defined in a dictionary or an
> encyclopedia. If Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous in
> the MOQ, then it cannot be defined in ways keeping with the
> definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias, however.

Right, so finally we have it in writing where you 'admit' you are clearly using the term experience in a different way to its dictionary definition.  I agree with you experience can become synonymous with DQ to the point where they are synonymous and at this point intellectual distinctions or definitions are meaningless.. However there is a whole world of distinction and definition where experience means something static..


> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> "What would you call it? Degeneracy, he guessed. Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics are made of. Purity, identified, ceases to be purity. Objections to pollution are a form of pollution. The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure. "
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> I think this a great quote but I don't see how it is applicable here.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly it's applicable - this attempt to capture that which cannot be caught is degeneracy..   Do you deny that by using intellectual sq your attempting to define DQ?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> Once intellectual patterns have emerged they are no longer Dynamic.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes, but they are an attempt.  When you describe experience - what are you describing?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> A memory, a snapshot, an ephemeral 'something' that I turn into the world.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So experience is a description of a memory?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> No. You asked me what I am describing when I describe an experience.
>>>>> Describing experience is secondary to experience, of course.
>>>>> Distinctions arise from experience but they are not experience.
>>>> 
>>>> That's right.. So, for the most important question, what is it that these descriptions are describing?
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> I have answered this question already. Experience.
>> 
>> Is experience DQ or is it sq? It must be one or there other to be in accordance with the MOQ.. If not - is there a third category of the MOQ that I don't know about?  If so, what is it?
> 
> Dan:
> I have already answered this question. In the MOQ, experience and
> Dynamic Quality become synonymous. That should be a 'wow' moment but
> as I have repeated it many times over I can see it isn't.

It isn't.

> 
>> 
>>>>>> When we describe things we describe intellectual patterns?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> Asked and answered.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> What are those original memories which we're describing made up of then?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> Experience.
>>>> 
>>>> Is that experience static or DQ?
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> How can it be either?
>> 
>> It can be either because Quality is experience.. They're the same thing.. If you don't value something you don't experience it.. Experience is either static quality or Dynamic Quality?
> 
> Dan:
> By putting labels on Dynamic Quality we encapsulate it. That's what we
> do with static quality. But we must be careful not to do with with
> Dynamic Quality.

All static quality is a label on Dynamic Quality.. This is degeneracy but unavoidable..  Yet you continually appear to want to deny this degeneracy? Pretend like it doesn't happen?

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm sorry but I'm intellectually curious about your words..  I like intellectual clarity - it's Mystically degenerate but intellectually very satisfying to achieve it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> So you are claiming to be a mystic? Is that it?
>>>> 
>>>> Not when I'm talking intellectually - like on a philosophical discussion board.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> Oh. I see. You are one of those part time mystics I've heard so much about. :)
>> 
>> Yes.. There's some Mystics who pretend that they're not part time but full time.. But they're kidding themselves because we cannot help but think..
> 
> Dan:
> I'll take your word for it as in my experience (;)) I have never made
> the acquaintance of such a person.

Okay.

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

What is reality if it is not all of these values including our wants, likes and dislikes?

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

Because you know it all already? If you know it - then the questions shouldn't matter.. I would love some questions. So far I've only been asked one good question about whether I think everything exists (which it does on one value level or another).

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

I would agree with that if it weren't for the fact that you are wrong about it being nonsense..   Quality does come before the human imagination, so in this sense it is separate from it.  However the human imagination is made up of quality.  How could it be made up of anything else?  What is the human imagination?

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> "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.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I take 'both' to mean at different times .  The MOQ is pragmatic - as opposed to idealism - and in pragmatism - situation and time are important...  And this quote does indeed pertain to our discussion - The definitions do indeed no longer apply to Dynamic Quality.  As soon as they are created they apply to their own category - static quality.  That is why we can make a statement such as "The city of LA experienced an earthquake today" - as what we are intellectually describing is one inorganic static quality pattern experiencing an inorganic event  - an earthquake...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> "We are intellectually describing" you say. Yes we are. The city of LA
>>>>>>>>> isn't describing the experience. Plus you seem to finally see that
>>>>>>>>> experience isn't both Dynamic Quality and static quality. Once
>>>>>>>>> defined, it is no longer Dynamic. This is good.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Once experience is defined it is no longer Dynamic Quality - I agree..  But at one stage experience is Dynamic Qualtiy… Then it becomes static quality…   All is part of experience..
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> Static quality emerges from experience, and within the MOQ experience
>>>>>>> and Dynamic Quality become synonymous.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So experience is Dynamic Quality?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> Asked and answered. Please review our previous correspondence.
>>>> 
>>>> I value intellectual clarity.  Why don't you?
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> I do. I do not value repeating myself ad nauseum, however.
>> 
>> I don't much either. It is indeed getting exhausting..   But I trust (and have been trusting) that you will keep your eye on intellectual discussion and know that if we continue to discuss the MOQ intellectually then our thoughts will become more harmonious and better as a result.   I think repeating is inevitable as we continually have to go over things.. This isn't easy..  But long as you keep your cup empty and are open to better ideas, and indeed - I do the same, then good things will happen. I'm sure of this.
> 
> Dan:
> I suppose we will see.

Indeed.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I know, as a Mystic, you might not like that, but it is intellectually valuable to be clear and precise.  If everything can be broken into either DQ or sq within the MOQ then what is experience?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> You seem to have some very strange ideas not only about me but about the MOQ.
>>>> 
>>>> If you care you might begin to understand my ideas.  I'm at least trying to understand your ideas.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> I have no idea why you think I do not understand you. Is it because I
>>> do not agree with you? Why on earth would I agree with that which I
>>> know to be of low value? That you have to try and understand me is an
>>> indication that you have yet to form a solid understanding with the
>>> MOQ.
>> 
>> Let's imagine a hypothetical…
>> 
>> Let's say one person thinks they know the MOQ pretty well.. and so does the other person they're talking with..  In fact, let's say they're so sure they know the MOQ really well that they don't even take the time to see if the other person has any good ideas about it because what I think is *already* so good..  (And indeed - the other person thinks the same)..
>> 
>> Now imagine those two people having a discussion about the MOQ..  Wow…. wouldn't they be doing each other a huge favour by pretty much just expounding what they think about the MOQ and categorising what the other person is saying into what they *already* know about the MOQ!
>> 
>> Please don't mistake openness to new ideas - as a lack of current understanding.   I'm asking questions because I'm confident that if I come across a better idea - I'll change my mind.  I hope you approach this discussion the same.
> 
> Dan:
> I embarrassed myself today at one of the churches where I do the
> building maintenance. When I walked into the rectory, no one was
> there. I thought, huh. This is strange. Then I heard a television set
> in the back room. Even stranger, as no one ever watches television
> during the day there.
> 
> When I walked back there, the staff was gathered around it. Oh! the
> priest says upon seeing me. They just elected the new pope. Come in
> and watch if you want. Honestly, I didn't care, but neither did I wish
> to be rude. So I watched for a few minutes. A statement was scrolling
> across the bottom of the screen about the urbi et orbi blessing that
> would soon occur. One of the secretaries said, oh, what does that
> mean?
> 
> Without thinking, I said city and world. The priest looked at me and
> said, oh no, I think it means him and them, as he quickly pulled out
> his iPhone and began furiously looking for the translation. When he
> found it, he admitted with hushed voice that I was right.
> 
> I of course knew he was wrong and furthermore, I knew I had
> inadvertently showed him up. A Catholic priest, after all, probably
> thinks he should know a bit of Latin, certainly more than the handyman
> who cleans the gutters and who fixes the furnaces when they go on the
> fritz and who scrubs the toilets that all these other people empty
> their shit and piss into.
> 
> Who am I to know what urbi et orbi means? Honestly, who am I? Who am I
> to know anything about the MOQ? I am no one. I didn't even graduate
> from high school, much less any university. I have no formal
> education. Why on earth would Robert Pirsig choose to offer his
> annotations to a cluttered meandering clutch of discussions that had
> little value to anyone and put together by an obvious idiot? I have no
> idea.
> 
> I don't mean to show anyone up. But if I am right, isn't my duty and
> obligation to say so? Perhaps I should have said nothing. It is the
> same way here. I tell myself, on second thought, to just be quiet.
> Don't write back. That way I am thought the fool that in fact I am.
> Yet something else drives me to say things like city and world;
> something else drives me to write these words.
> 
> How have I learned these things I know? By keeping an open mind. By
> learning from everyone I meet. By listening to what others say rather
> than thinking about what I am going to say in return. By reading these
> posts with care and with no intention of replying until I see the
> reply on the screen in front of me with no real recollection of how it
> got there.
> 
> Hypothetically speaking, you can accuse me of a lot of things, but
> being inattentive isn't one of them.

Okay that's good and I trust that you do this..

>>>>>>>>>>>> What actually exists?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> The human imagination.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Idealism!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Quality exists.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> No wonder you dislike the idea that matter comes first so much.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> My likes and dislikes have no bearing here. And how on earth can you
>>>>>>>>> possibly know what I like or dislike, anyway. More conjecture, I
>>>>>>>>> guess. Again, if nothing exists outside the human imagination, then
>>>>>>>>> how can anyone ever know that matter exists independently of it? Or
>>>>>>>>> Quality, for that matter?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Without your likes and dislikes you wouldn't exist and so neither would this discussion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> Honestly, I would rather spend this time doing something else. I have
>>>>>>> books in my mind waiting to be written. The fact that it seems better
>>>>>>> to contribute these words than not has nothing to do with my liking
>>>>>>> it. There have been times I cannot think of any reason to keep on
>>>>>>> living. But I do. So as I said, my likes and dislikes have no bearing
>>>>>>> here, or on anything for that matter.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I disagree.  While you're right that what you think you value(want) and what you actually value can often be different - not concerning yourself with what think you value would be one very big anti-intellectual mistake.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> I am unsure how you know what I think and what I want and what I
>>>>> value, but thank you for the advice. I am sure you mean well.
>>>> 
>>>> Actually, I'm trying to understand what your saying because I care about you. I'm quickly learning you don't care much for me or for what I write. Depressing.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> Let's quit with the self-pity. Read my words. Look at my posts. Tell
>>> me that I do not care. I've spent an inordinate amount of time
>>> considering and writing these contributions to you. TO YOU! And now
>>> you have the temerity to claim I do not care? If you are depressed,
>>> they have happy pills for that. See your doctor. But never for a
>>> moment think that I do not care.
>> 
>> Ok. So long as you continue to keep it intellectual I can't argue with that.
> 
> Dan:
> That is very magnanimous of you. Thank you.

Hmmm.

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

So you claim it is possible to stay in the moment forever? I see the value in this Dan. I see the value in living in the moment.. But if you really see that - then why talk Philosophy - which by its nature is withdrawn from the moment and is actually thoughts about 'the moment'?  

>>>>>>>> I've answered your quality query below.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ah. So you now see static quality emerges from experience and is no
>>>>>>>>>>> longer experience itself. That's wonderful!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I always agreed with your position on this.. You wanted us to disagree about this (still do) but I held two contradictory views at the same time… How do I justify this? Because unlike yourself - I think that Quality exists before the human imagination - If something is a good idea then that's right - if something else at a different time is a good idea then the alternative is right..
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> How can you know anything exists independent of human imagination?
>>>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I have. And when I start to think about it I begin to think about what the nature of knowledge is itself and what it actually means to 'know' anything.  What is 'knowledge'? If you start talking about what you know - you'll start thinking about things which you value.  To know something is to know what's good. This understanding of the world - one which places quality at the start - is fabulously more coherent and more harmonious an understanding than one which does not.  That's how I know that Quality exists beyond the human imagination.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> Each day, I begin with a blank slate upon which to write the story of
>>>>>>> my life. I've forgotten most of what I ever knew, and I didn't know
>>>>>>> that much to begin with. I keep to the moment. What does that mean?
>>>>>>> Keeping to the moment? It means speaking when spoken to, working when
>>>>>>> work is needed, eating when I am hungry, drinking when I am thirsty,
>>>>>>> sleeping when I am tired. I am not thinking about what I will be doing
>>>>>>> after I speak, after I work, after I eat, after I drink, after I
>>>>>>> sleep.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This knowledge you speak of will only take you farther away from the
>>>>>>> moment. It will never bring you closer. This world you think that you
>>>>>>> understand is all in your imagination. There is nothing that exists
>>>>>>> outside that imagination.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't disagree with you.  But I think that your perspective is narrow. You are only interested in the things which you value.  What you value is keeping to the moment.  You do not want to or value going away from this moment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> Again, I am lazy and ignorant it's true. I keep to the moment and let
>>>>> others revel in shiny baubles and trinkets of pleasure. Everyone else
>>>>> has plans. I never know what I am going to do next. I just do it.
>>>> 
>>>> That's fine. But plans can be good 'sometimes' too..
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> Yes I am sure you are right as long as you realize plans can be good
>>> for you and not for me.
>> 
>> I think, all else being equal, plans are good for everyone..
>> 
>> But where do plans come from?
> 
> Dan:
> From foolish minds who believe they can foresee the future.

Or intelligent people who use their minds to plan for the future catastrophe or accomplishment?  Our culture wouldn't function without planning.  We need to plan for who's going to be where at what time. Hospitals need to plan for who is going to be sick.  Police need to plan for where crimes may be committed.  Roads need to be planned for where people are likely to travel.  Are all these things foolish?

What is valuable is what is probable.. If something is valued highly then it is very probable. If we look at values intelligently - then we can plan for the future intelligently - by seeing what is likely to happen and react accordingly.

Our minds aren't perfect.. We never get a complete hold on everything.. Things will happen which no amount of planning could predict..  But a life with planning is better than one without!

>>>> I'll give you my answer in advance - Being intellectual seems against your non-planning ethos. I do not think these two things need to be in opposition.  I think you can be 'present with the moment' when it is good to do so and be intellectual and plan when it is good to do so too.. The MOQ supports all different types of quality.  Different qualities for different times - depending on what's good at the time.
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> There is that which is of higher value and that which is of lower
>>> value. By keeping one's attention focused upon what is at hand, the
>>> moment, one is better able to navigate the currents of Quality that
>>> constitute our reality.
>> 
>> Right so Quality exists and is our reality - not the human imagination?
> 
> Dan:
> Like everything else, human imagination is Quality.

Right.  So we are saying exactly the same thing? Why not just say Quality exists and that the human imagination is created by it.

> 
>> 
>>> None of us have the time to wallow in self-pity and hurt feelings. As
>>> I attempted to explain earlier, biological, social, and intellectual
>>> quality are not separate and apart from the moment. It is only your
>>> thinking it so that makes it so. I would tell you to wake up but your
>>> slumber seems very deep and doing so might well give you a start.
>> 
>> Are biologic, social or intellectual quality - Dynamic Quality or static quality things?  If they are static quality - then are they not -  by definition - removed from the present moment?
> 
> Dan:
> Of course they are not removed from the moment. They are a memory of
> the moment. Look at it this way: you remove a bucket of water from a
> river. Even though it is no longer in the river it is still water,
> right?


Exactly.  So Quality creates the world.. But the human imagination is quality. 

We are saying the same thing it seems. Could it be that we are saying the same thing?

Or in MOQese - Dynamic Quality creates the world so the human imagination is quality.


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

Right. But am I right or wrong? I think the quality of my thoughts can be compared to other thoughts and the quality(or lack thereof) of these ideas exists and is just as real as this computer I write on.

> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this intellectual level part of experience?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a memory of experience, a map, if you will.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately yes.  But to avoid the pitfalls of idealism, we say that the quality of an ideal is what makes it exist and not the ideal existence itself..  A quality idea is that sq exists and is experienced.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>>>> Static quality exists but it is no longer experience. It has emerged
>>>>>>>>>>> from experience.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The idea that static quality exists and is experienced is a good idea..  There is no singular truth in the MOQ..  You only need look to see what's actually good and logic will follow.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>>>> It may be a good idea TO YOU. If so, then fine.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Quality isn't just subjective.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Quality is universal.  Quality creates all things.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "And finally: Phædrus, following a path that to his knowledge had never been taken before in the history of Western thought, went straight between the horns of the subjectivity-objectivity dilemma and said Quality is neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter. It is a third entity which is independent of the two."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> I think this is part of why he introduced the MOQ in a second book.
>>>>>>> The Quality of ZMM has been replaced by the Dynamic Quality of Lila.
>>>>>>> All things emerge from Dynamic Quality. Subjects and objects are
>>>>>>> secondary. They arise from experience; they have no independent
>>>>>>> existence.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> They have a static quality existence - separate and very different from a DQ non-existence.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan:
>>>>> They have no independent existence apart from experience.
>>>> 
>>>> Right. An experience which is static quality?
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> No David. I begin to suspect this is your whole problem. You seem to
>>> desire static quality to exist. You seem to want it to be real,
>>> something we can experience, something that is reassuring. Static
>>> quality always lags behind the experience. It is a snapshot, a memory,
>>> of the moment that has passed by.
>> 
>> Right.. static quality is later.. DQ is first.. I agree with all of that.  But when we talk Metaphysics.. Intellectually - it is always after the fact.. It never quite captures DQ.. So it never gets it right.. So why bother?
>> 
>> I bother because it cannot be avoided and so we might as well get these intellectual descriptions of experience as good as we can.  To do that we pretend that these sq descriptions actually represent our experience.. The act of being intellectual is 'pretending' that sq exists.  This is a different perspective than the perspective that DQ is synonymous with experience.. But an unavoidable one nonetheless..
> 
> Dan:
> Well, I don't ever remember saying we have to pretend static quality
> exists, nor have I ever said there is a perspective that DQ is
> synonymous with experience. That is all your doing. To me, static
> quality exists. I don't have to pretend. In the MOQ, Dynamic Quality
> becomes synonymous with experience. That seems very simple and
> succinct. In other words, it has harmony and points toward Quality.

And I'm trying to see that Quality but cannot.  The ugliest thing about 'Dynamic Quality becoming synonymous with experience' is that it places the word 'experience' into the same undefined category as DQ.  Why not just say that DQ is experience? If experience isn't sq or DQ - what is it? These are simply questions that an intellectual mind wants answered.  Answers which aren't forthcoming from you.. 

Alternatively - as I've said many times.. Experience can be either DQ or static quality.  There is no difference between experience and quality. They are the same thing.. That which isn't experienced doesn't exist.  Dynamic Quality exists as does static quality - therefore both are part of that thing we call experience.. 

This answer does explain what experience is- in an intellectual way - that is also in line with the MOQ.

> 
>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Dan.  I hope that you reconsider your approach to this discussion and actually begin to care for it.  I have been enjoying it and finding it rewarding and really appreciate the time you have been spending on it.  Of course that will change if you continue to care so little…
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> Look. Just look! Look at my words! Look at how I put care into every
>>> nuance, into every idea I present. Open your eyes! Look! You are
>>> walking around in a stupor and neither of us has the time for such
>>> shenanigans.
>> 
>> I see Dan. I see what you are saying. I see the Quality in it. It is good quality writing. I wouldn't talk to you for this long if what you wrote wasn't any good..
> 
> Dan:
> It is very discouraging to put hours into these posts and then to be
> told that I don't care, as if you are doing me a favor by even talking
> to me (which of course you are). I sat down here without really
> considering what I am doing and four hours later I see this post has
> arisen. I tell myself I have better things to do. I have books waiting
> to be written, stories waiting to be told. But that is one of the
> hazards of living in the moment.
> 
> But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
> In proving foresight may be vain:
> The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men
> Gang aft agley,
> An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
> For promis'd joy! [Robert Burns]

Okay.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I mean; intellectual discussion like this can be very difficult because we're confronting the values of the person we're discussing with head on.   Thanks to the MOQ though, we can clearly distinguish between ad hominem attacks(which are immoral) and intellectual discussion(which is very moral).  I'm wanting to continue this discussion and keep it on the intellectual side.  Do you?
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> There have been no ad hominem attacks by me that I am aware of. If you
>>> are having difficulty with my words I have done my best to elucidate
>>> them for you. I have repeated myself many times over. That I do not
>>> agree with you is not an indication that I do not understand you. I
>>> do.
>>> 
>>> What you like, what you want, has no bearing here, just as what I like
>>> and what I want has no bearing. I don't care what you want just as I
>>> don't care what I want. What possible significance does my wanting
>>> this and that have on this discussion?
>>> 
>>> I contribute to the group because it seems better than not
>>> contributing. I go to work every day because it seems better than not
>>> going to work every day. I write all night because it seems better
>>> than not writing all night; because it seems better than sitting
>>> around in front of a television set allowing my mind to atrophy.
>>> 
>>> If you want someone to play nice then perhaps you should pick someone
>>> else with whom to discuss these ideas. I am not a nice person. I can
>>> be blunt, irritating, and downright rude at times, even vulgar
>>> (gasp!).
>>> 
>>> But I can assure you I know a thing or two about the MOQ. So if you
>>> enjoy exploring some of its subtle nuances, feel free to explore them
>>> with me. Or not. It is up to you.
>> 
>> I am trying to explore subtle nuance with you and hopefully improve my understanding of the MOQ in the process.. I keep telling you that I agree with you on most of what you write.. I see the value in living in the present moment. But there is a subtle issue of these minds of ours unavoidably, degenerately trying to capture DQ - no matter how long we sit for..  Secondly there is another subtle difference between everything being human specific and quality existing before everything.  And thirdly, there is a subtle distinction of what is included under the category of 'experience' in the MOQ.  Is DQ part of experience?  Is sq part of experience? What is experience?  These are the questions I am enjoying exploring with you.
> 
> Dan:
> We are human and so everything is human-specific. Since experience
> comes first there is no way to know if anything comes before it, or
> not. Within the MOQ, experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Dan
> 

Experience is experience - there is no need to know if anything comes before it. Dynamic Quality and static quality are both a part of experience. Dynamic Quality is that part of experience which we cannot define.  Static quality is that part which is defined.  Philosophy is concerned with capturing our ultimately undefined experience and putting (human specific) names and words on it.  When we talk philosophy we run under the assumption that these words and names of things actually are the things they represent.. But that's just an assumption we go by - based on the fact that it's unavoidable to create static things - so it's a good one to go by.

"The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life."

Thank-you Dan,

-David.