[MD] An experiment

[david]

Andre said to John M:

...DQ is not a concept in the MOQ. Dynamic Quality denotes the unconceptualised part of reality. Consequently, the term Dynamic Quality is not meant to be a concept but only a referring term: ¨It’s important to keep all concepts out of Dynamic Quality. Concepts are always static. Once they get into Dynamic Quality they’ll overrun it and try to present it as some kind of concept itself (Pirsig,1997 e) Anthony’s PhD, p 35)   ...DQ is referring to an ineffable ¨unconditioned . It refers to the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum (Northrop). William James’ flux. The Buddhist formlessness, the Void. The way Pirsig refers to it as ‚ a vague sense of betterness” ( referring to the Zuni)…’ a dim perception of he knows not what”  gets him off [the stove] Dynamically (LILA p118-9). The entire evolutionary progression as consisting of ‚ spur of the moment decisions…” (LILA, p147). 


dmb says:

That's right. This is what I was trying to say to the other John, who had made the same sort of mistake but from the opposite direction (by taking the static concepts of the metaphysics as Dynamic). The quotes I selected for that post (MOQ vs Reality) work just as well as a response to John M because they describe the distinction between static quality (names, definitions, concepts, metaphysics, etc.) and DQ (reality, direct experience, pre-conceptual experience, etc.) so clearly and succinctly. 


"Metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics is NAMES about reality."  "Quality (DQ) is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions."  "Quality
 is indivisible, undefinable, and unknowable in the sense that there is a
 knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A 
metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't 
any metaphysics." (Emphasis is Pirsig's, LILA, chapter 5)


Please notice that the Pirsig quote from Andre says the same thing as the bits I selected from chapter 5 of LILA.


¨It’s important to keep all concepts out of Dynamic Quality. Concepts 
are always static," Pirsig said. "Once they [concepts] get into Dynamic Quality they’ll overrun it
 and try to present it as some kind of concept itself." 


Now, please notice that this is also what Pirsig says about the belief shared by philosophical mystics. "They share a common belief that the fundamental
 nature of reality is outside language; that language splits things up 
into parts while the true nature of reality is undivided." (LILA, chapter 5)


This same distinction between concepts and reality, between static quality and Dynamic Quality, also explains Pirsig's objection to theism. Pirsig could have just as easily said, "Once theological concepts get into DQ they’ll overrun it
 and try to present it as some kind of God concept itself." 


Pirsig:


"Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the
rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of Dynamic Quality, a
sign-post which allows socially pattern-dominated people to see Dynamic
Quality. The danger has always been that the rituals, the static patterns,
are mistaken for what they merely represent and are allowed to destroy the
Dynamic Quality they were originally intended to preserve."




Pirsig: 


"In all religions bishops tend to gild Dynamic Quality with all sorts of
static interpretations because their cultures require it. But these
interpretations become like golden vines that cling to a tree, shut out its
sunlight and eventually strangle it."


Pirsig in Lila chapter 30:


"The MOQ associates religious mysticism with Dynamic Quality but it would
certainly be a mistake to think that the MOQ endorses the static beliefs of
any particular religious sect. Phaedrus thought sectarian religion was a


static social fallout of DQ and that while some sects had fallen less than
others, none of them told the whole truth."





"He thought about how once this integration occurs and DQ is identified with
religious mysticism it produces an avalanche of information as to what
Dynamic Quality is. A lot of this relgious mysticism is just low-grade


"yelping about God" of course, but if you search for the sources of it and
don't take the yelps too literally a lot of interesting things turn up."