Continuing my Digest on Steven Peterson's Digest of
Jan 10th (both reproduced below):
Steven calls instances like the following ones,
'descriptions' of DQ:
"the continuing stimulus which causes us to create the
world in which
we live // the response of an organism to its
environment // the pre-intellectual cutting edge of
reality// etc."
I don't quite agree in calling them 'descriptions',
they don't seem to describe DQ at all. I'd like to
propose what I think is a far better word for the
instances in Steven's list: 'Manifestations'.
"The response of an organism to its environment" or
"the value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical
solution" and others, may be thought as manifestations
of DQ or ways in which DQ 'manifests' itself.
I am not going to quote lexical definitions of the
word. I assume though that we all might agree that the
manifestation of some-thing in another entails the
assumption that the thing manifested is believed by us
to exist. Used in the negative sense, this is quite
clear: if I happened not to believe in Evil, I could
not accept that a certain event is a manifestation of
Evil.
If we were to say then, that the items in
Steven's list and others are manifestations of DQ, we
are implying that we believe that DQ 'is' ; there is
little of the conditional about it, nor of provisional
hypothesis or theories. May be because of that
'manifestation' belongs more to religious lexicons
than to scientific ones. In Mechanics we say a force
applied on a particle 'results in' its acceleration
not that a force 'manifests itself' in the velocity of
the particle. The reason for that may lie in that in
our minds 'manifestation' goes beyond causality.
I said above that I wasn't going to quote
lexical definitions; I hope though that 'quoting
quotes' may help to clarify the meanings that others
give to manifestation:
" Culture is the manifestation of the mind in human
behavior" (C.A. Moore)
" The particular element in each manifestation of
Beauty comes from the emotions " (Charles Baudelaire)
" A book is a manifestation of life just as much as a
tree, or a horse or a star" (Henry Miller)
"To know that what is impenetrable to us really
exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and
the most radiant beauty
" ( Albert Einstein).
(To quote the full quotes would be too lengthy; if
any one is interested in them and others, I'd be happy
to oblige).
Not to mention quotes from texts dealing with
manifestations of the Divinity, of which we are all
well acquainted with. The word manifestation does
indeed have strong religious overtones. I don't think
though that this should deter us from talking about
'manifestations of DQ'.
David M. in his digest (Jan 17th) in this thread
writes: "You know, I can't think of a good reason not
to call DQ sacred, perhaps our highest value".Dan
Glover in his notable Essay "Quality is a Good Dog"
associates quality with the tonal and the nagual of
Castaneda. And many others in this Forum don't seem
likely to be deterred by introducing religious
concepts into the discussions. For those that may
object one may say that religions may be considered as
forms of enquiry into the world, within the
constraints of Faith.
Could one also say that static quality
'manifests itself ' in this or that-- ? I'd prefer to
leave the question open for the time being.
======
Steven Peterson wrote:
"Here are some of Pirsig's descriptions of Dynamic
Quality...
The undefined ?better?
the origin of all things
the continuing stimulus which causes us to create the
world in which
we live
the response of an organism to its environment
the sense of harmony of the cosmos
Big Self
the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality
the source of all things, completely simple and always
new
The generalized "something" that compels the baby's
attention
Whitehead's "dim apprehension"
the Quality of freedom
those seemingly trivial, unimportant, "spur of the
moment" decisions
that directed the progress of evolution
the value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical
solution to a
laborious
one, or a brilliant experiment over a confusing,
inconclusive one
the base of reality
Vast emptiness and nothing sacred."
End of quote
=====
Jorge commented on the above digest:
In my opinion this is a most remarkable contribution
from Steven. Remarkable in the sense that it suggests
a methodology for a better understanding of DQ.
This is the way I see it, and I ask for your
patience because it will take long:
If someone poses the question What is DQ? we
cannot answer with a definition; (everyone seems to
agree here at least in that). Since we agree in "no
definitions" of DQ, the next alternative seems to be
to convey to the questioner our personal meaning of
DQ. I assume that most of you has a very clear idea of
what DQ might be. The problem with personal meanings
is that when we attempt to externalize them,
especially in writing, they look suspiciously alike
lexical definitions and then we start arguing about
the pros or cons of this or that meaning;( as applied
to complex notions, usually a fruitless venue)
What Steve is proposing (if I read him
correctly) is to take an alternative path: instead of
attempting to answer the question What is DQ? to
examine the instances in which, according to Pirsig,
DQ 'shows up' and, through this examination, to obtain
a certain insight of what DQ might be.
(Note I'm using the sort of crude expression "shows
up" provisionally; later on I'll propose what I think
is a better term than 'showing up' or 'description',
used by Steven)
As a sort of analogy: confronted with the question
-- What is Art? we are in a quandary. Definitions of
Art seem to be hotly contested; lately, the idea that
better to leave Art undefined is gaining ground among
Art Historians. In the absence of a consensus
definition we could take our questioner to several
Museums and concert halls and point out to him/her
where and how Art 'shows up' (and also where it
doesn't). I'm sure that, for the questioner, the
resulting experience will be far more enlightening
than trying to apprehend a number of conventional
definitions or of personal meanings.
How could this methodology be put to work?
I must confess at the start that my notions of DQ are
extremely nebulous so, don't take me too seriously. I
would say that first step, could be to explore the
context in which the phrases quoted by Steven appear
in Pirsig's books and expand upon them. A second step
could perhaps be to add other instances (as proposed
by people interested in this exercise) of where DQ
"shows up" and then to explore the question of the
criteria that could be used to accept or refute a
given instance. Yet a third step... never mind; let's
see first how to start.
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
